Wokkafans,

Thank you for posting that 'briefing note', I enjoyed it! It demonstrates very well the murky nature of geopolitics - especially the total lack of absolutes. This is something that the bleeding heart brigade fail to appreciate when they take their "something must be done" or "there is no military solution" stances. But, sadly, it is also something that Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy et al failed to appreciate back in 2011 when they started declaring that certain leaders, Assad included, were "on the wrong side of history".

I wonder why the note made no reference to the Saudis? The conflict of interests in our relations with them is just about the thorniest geopolitical problem facing our leaders, IMHO!

Both points well played.

Police weaponary in the very last line of defence.
 

Sorry about the late return, fellows. Been looking at buying either a decent posh shed, or a "Zen 1 or Zen 2 log cabin" for my new garden -got to get events in perspective at times.
Also, I e-mailed by executive boss telling her I no longer want to be routed to travel through either London underground or any London railway station when I go on my sorties forth. She is yet to reply.
Responses like mine will wipe million's from London's cash/tourist intake, but that is to be expected. But possibly even planned in by our recently arrived new enemy?
Am I cowardly? Or more pragmatic? I feel I'm simply taking some responsibility for myself. But stand accused, I suppose, of treachery>.
Met Police cant defend London faced with mass attack teams using assault rifles, I would think. Someone knowledgeable said as such today in the Mail. Our ARV cops carry a version of the AR15 I think, and the G86, but with limited single shot/smaller calibre/smaller quantities of ammunition (15 round magazines)!! They've got no chance against heavily armed AK47 wielding fast firers with larger rounds (7.62 x 39mm x 60 rounds). And therefore neither would I, if caught out and relying on the Met, I decided.


* Thought about firepower - if the RM and British Army infantry used to go out on patrol against PIRA in urban and rural NI armed with a variety of arms but including SLR (and GPMG) firing 7.62mm x 51mm x 20 NATO rounds, and with the capability of calling up even further weaponry if needed, why are UK police (where armed even) still persisting with their relative pop guns at this time?
Should the UK military now intervene on the Police's behalf and save their red faces?


Its clear the tactics European based ISIS are now using. AK47 with multiple full magazines set on automatic. Maximum firepower.
Are our police behind the curve so to speak, when facing them?
HS.

Russian Backfires + cruise missiles used in latest attacks on Syria.


http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/17...syria-air-war/

Jayand, good post.
 

Yes a good reply to me. How would I deal with Jihadi John? And the Right Hon. Mr Corbyn always has to be brought in along as well. I cant answer for him I'm afraid. However as a paid up member of the awkward squad he hasn't half been consistently right about so many matters in the MENA areas in the last, oh 15 odd years. But then again, later on when you look back so many of his beardy corduroy type usually, later on seem...very prescient.


But back to John. What on earth do we do about the 1000* odd British blokes like him also. (Johns now dead it rather happily seems).
You see, forget John really - its the principle. We have here a UK citizen who has now been killed by the state, our UK state seemingly, without trial or fair hearing. To me, its now a dark reality that upon order of a UK politician, our unseen and unknown spooky drone operators can snuff out a UK civvy without fear of challenge or rebuke. Whoever happened to reason this is actually good, without recourse to a debate in the HoC, let alone the UK's own citizens, has much to explain.
Put it another way Jayand. In tens years time Corbyn might be PM, and he might think you pose a challenge or threat to him - so presumably when you are sunning it on your holidays abroad, he can authorise your good self to be snuffed out by lightening bolt also? That's fair, right?
Thin end of a wedge.




* Not sure about that number - no one is, but probably between 1 and 10,000 anyway.

Hannover Stadium Incident
 

Hannover Chief of Police: "There was a device intended to be detonated inside the stadium".

GSG9 being deployed.

Priority.
 

Before I close down, my final thought - should the UK not be looking at securing the actual safety of its own citizens within its own coastline first?
I mean before it again begins very expensive and much limited-use Air Expeditionary Warfare over Syria?
If we attempted to train up 20,000 military personnel in using automatic weapons against the current threat and then stationed them throughout the UK's centres of population, and as a last line of defence? As back up to the Police? Who are stretched, generally unarmed and also on the downhill side of Govt.budget cuts?
Ideal candidates would be NCO/former NCOs of all 3 services who could meet the mental and other demands this would bring?
Just a musing. Its not all about London, despite the political bias displayed so far. ISIS will soon twig where we are weak at home.
PM Cameron seems determined to start our own air war, but that is occurring already against ISIL from better equipped and sited Air Forces than ours anyway.
Priority wrong? Who knows, or even cares until it happens. Goodnight and stay safe people.

Being an armed (with gun) police officer really must be a bit of a dodgy occupation.
Not only do you run the risk of being killed (occupational hazard ?) but you also face the certainty that, if you so much as fire your weapon never mind waste a malefactor , a horde of parasitic lawyers will descend on you like the hounds of hell and have your job and probably your liberty as well. Lovely.

How about heavily investing in a robust airborne and maritime coast guard to patrol our borders and coastlines, working with the police, customs and armed forces to protect our citizens and country.

Hangarshuffle,

I'm curious about your position here. You seem to be very concerned that a UK civilian (who has effectively given up his civilian status by becoming a terrorist operative in a self-declared foreign "state") can be taken out by some spooky drone driver at the will of a politician, yet you are happy to put the Army on the streets of the U.K. to do domestic security instead of properly resourcing the Police.

Can you see any dangers in the Army doing policing? It's certainly not something my Army colleagues think they should be doing.

My bother in law has been a cop for 20 years. He has put up with that for most of that time, and the points you raise about the Monday Morning Quarterbacks he is most familiar with. (He's now a Lieutenant, so he has to worry about his patrolmen using theirs as well).

He also has never had to fire his weapon once in the line of duty. (In point of fact, most officers in this county have not ever used their weapon other than at the range).

'You see, forget John really - its the principle. We have here a UK citizen who has now been killed by the state, our UK state seemingly, without trial or fair hearing. To me, its now a dark reality that upon order of a UK politician, our unseen and unknown spooky drone operators can snuff out a UK civvy without fear of challenge or rebuke. Whoever happened to reason this is actually good, without recourse to a debate in the HoC, let alone the UK's own citizens, has much to explain'

'Jihadi John' had clearly murdered British citizens and posed a clear danger to others held hostage . As a British citizen he also signs up to abiding by the law of the U.K and whatever country he is in . It was not realistic to believe he could be apprehended without risk to life . So its exactly the same senario if you come out of a house in the U.K and point a gun at someone -your likely to die -being in Syria -being armed and being a threat to British people puts you in exactly the same postion.

So in essence - if you travel to Syria -murder people and make propaganda films about that you have decided that you wish to live outside the rules of
society -no need for the House of Commons to debate anything .

Is there really a difference between ordering a crew to drop a dumb bomb at X,Y that may or may not kill a combatant and equally may have collateral deaths too and authorising a smart bomb that will kill a combatant and will not have any collateral casualties?

I said deash weak link had to be logistics and lo and behold:
US A-10 Attack Planes Hit ISIS Oil Convoy to Crimp Terror Funding | Military.com

But before we say they got it right, look at this,

Back in Aug 2014
US Squadron of AC- 130 ' could end ISIS in few months time., page 1

As a question...why does Russia use long range bombers to launch cruise missiles? Couldn't they be fired from submarines or warships in the area?

Troppo, it doesn't follow that they have either ships or missiles in place. Their at sea replenishment may be more difficult than for USN. As for submarines, launching a missile reveals its position; they may wish their submarines to remain covert.

That of course presumes they have the right assets in place. Remember the last time they used ship borne cruise missiles they experienced some unwanted publicity.

Thanks PN.

I believe that they are.

https://www.rt.com/news/322413-russi...mediterranean/

They got complaints from Iran when, reportedly, 4 of the SSM fired from the Caspian crashed on their territory en-route. Not sure what route the bombers flew or their launch points. Any reports/supposition?

The Aviationist:

As initially reported by Reuters, a US official has confirmed that Moscow has conducted a significant number of strikes in Syria using both sea-launched cruise missiles and long-range bombers.

The Russian MoD said 25 long-range bombers took part in the raid: 5 x Tu-160s, 6 x Tu-95MS and 14 x Tu-22M3.

According to one our sources who wishes to remain anonymous, the long-range bombers the Russian Air Force has used against ground targets in Syria early in the morning on Nov. 17 were Tu-22M Backfire strategic bombers.

The aircraft were allegedly launched from Mozdok airbase, in Ossetia, where as many as 6 Tu-22s were spotted on a recent deployment.

Remains of a KH-555 missile wreck were found in Syria: considered that this type of air-launched missile is mainly carried by Tu-95 Bear and Tu-160 Blackjack bombers (Tu-22s have been tested with the KH-555 but full integration is not completed or at least unknown), the long-range bombers that launched the attack on ground targets using those missiles may have been the Tu-95s or Tu-160s flying alongside the Backfires.

Dear Regressive Left,

Riddle me this - if terror attacks in the West are a consequence of our record of intolerance, military intervention and interference in the Islamic world, how do you explain the reported threats to stage attacks in Germany, which has pointedly refused to take part in any of said interventions and controversially opened its doors (if only briefly) to unfettered migration?

Yours sincerely,

Me.

"Put it another way Jayand. In tens years time Corbyn might be PM"
:D
Hangarshuffle, that really is the funniest thing I've heard in a very long time.
You raise a serious point however about state sponsored assination and it's important that our government is responsible, however a large dose of reality is needed here.
This terrorism is a messy business and it requires tough responses, responses that are often reactive, real time intelligence gave the security forces an opportunity to take out a known terrorist, a terrorist guilty of heinious crimes that nobody could deny.
To allow him to walk away to again commit or plan acts when they had a clear chance would be an outrage! To attempt some sort of special forces detention would of risked dozens more lives and likely have failed in such a built up heavily defended area.
It's the same idea as the shoot to kill policy authorised to police for use when terrorists are attacking, It's ludicrous to suggest the police should consider first non lethal methods during an attack!, The ROE has for years been very clear, deadly force is authorised if you or others lives are at risk and there is no other way to prevent it.
How else exactly do you propose stopping an AK47 Shooting, suicide vest wearing religious nutter?

Dan Hodges in the Torygraph: David Cameron should unilaterally order air strikes on Syria after the Paris attacks

So now there is no longer any dispute or debate – not that there ever really was. Jeremy Corbyn is neither willing nor able to keep the people of this country safe from terrorist attack. The idea of him actually securing the office to which he nominally aspires – prime minister of the United Kingdom – would be laughable, were it not so terrifying. But the fact he doesn’t hold that position doesn’t mean he is without influence.

Yesterday, David Cameron was asked about the possibility of authorising UK airstrikes on Isil in Syria, in the wake of the Paris attacks. In response he trotted out what has no become his standard line. "I have always said I think that it is sensible that we should: Isil don't recognise a border between Iraq and Syria and neither should we but I need to build the argument, I need to take it to parliament, I need to convince more people. We won’t hold that vote unless we can see that parliament would endorse action because to fail on this would be damaging. It is not a question of damaging the government it is a question of not damaging our country and its reputation in the world”.

In other words, “I’d like to act, but my hands are tied”. Up until Friday I had some sympathy with the prime minister on this. He tried to do the decent thing in Syria in 2013, but was undermined by the duplicity of Ed Miliband, who gave him assurances of Labour support, then reneged. But Paris has changed all that. The person binding David Cameron’s hands now is David Cameron himself. And the time has come for him to demonstrate the leadership and the political courage to break free.

The prime minister has told the country we need to conduct air strikes on Isil to keep people safe on the streets of Britain. Some people may question that judgement, but it is the view David Cameron holds, and has publicly articulated. And therefore he must now follow through on it.

Given the immediacy of the threat revealed by the Paris attacks, Cameron should unilaterally order air strikes on Isil in Syria. He should not place that decision in the hands of the House of Commons, and he does not need to place that decision in the hands of the House of Commons. He is the prime minister, and as a result, the ultimate authority to deploy Britain’s Armed Forces and security services rests with him, and him alone. He claims he has identified a clear and present danger to our nation’s security, so he a has duty to act on it. He cannot allow the House of Commons to second guess him. He certainly cannot allow the current leader of the opposition to second guess him.

Inevitably, such a decision by the prime minister would provoke a political backlash. Fine. He should confront it. He should challenge the Labour Party to table a motion opposing his actions. He should also challenge the rebels on his own side of the House to vote against their own government on the issue. And he should explain to them this. "If you defeat me I will immediately table a motion of confidence in this administration. I will link it directly to action against Isil in Syria. If you, as a Conservative MP, wish to bring down your own government over an issue of national security, that is your choice."

Then he should address Labour MPs. And he should say this. "If you wish to vote against this confidence motion, you go right ahead. If you defeat that motion, I will resign, and call an immediate general election. It will be an election held on the issue of which party the British people most trust to protect themselves, their families and their communities from the threat of terror. Your candidate in that election – the candidate you will have to endorse on the doorsteps, and argue should replace me in Downing Street – will be Jeremy Corbyn."

The Prime Minister is right when he says the failure of the House of Commons to endorse his stance on Syria would be damaging for Britain’s reputation abroad. But we currently have a situation where David Cameron is saying he wishes to act on a matter of urgent national security, but cannot, because he has insufficient parliamentary authority. That is of itself deeply damaging to our international reputation. It is also a morally abhorrent position to hold, given we are effectively asking our closest allies to risk the lives of their serviceman to keep our streets safe, when we will not.

And it sends another signal. For all the talk of our resolution and reach, the terrorists are now presented with the spectacle of a British prime minister openly admitting he wishes to strike at them, but can’t. We are communicating impotence and irresolution at a time when we should be communicating determination and strength.

David Cameron says we need to launch air-strikes on Isil in Syria to keep this country safe. And if he allows Jeremy Corbyn to exercise a veto over that policy, then it raises this question – if David Cameron won’t stand up to Jeremy Corbyn, who will he stand up to?

While there's cross-party agreement on how lamentable Mr Corbyn's performance has been, this isn't about him. We still need a credible plan to defeat IS. If there is one, I've not heard it yet. And ORAC, you need to explain why in 2013 you regarded an air assault on President Assad as "trying to do the decent thing" yet now insist we attack his enemies.

Thos are not ORAC's words, those are the words of the article he cited in the link at the top. ORAC chooses not to put other people's quotes in a quote block, which can at times be confusing in re what he has to say and what others have to say. I doubt you'll get that explanation, but you might get one from Dan Hodges, the author, if you contact him.

As L50 says, they are Dan Hodges words, not mine. But on the subject and the question...

In 2013, when Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people, and there was an international push for no-fly zones and air strikes to stop him, I was in favour. In the current situation with the Russians, USA and others attacking various factions, and having already lost the vote in 2013 parliament against further action*, I could see little point in him pressing the point again.

However, if he truly considers it necessary to prevent a direct threat to the UK then, then as Hodges states, he has no option but to act. Further, since France has invoked the Lisbon Treaty asking for support, and are considering invoking NATO article 5, he has a moral and legal basis to do so.

The current position of offering to send a RN destroyer to provide AD cover to the Charles de Gaulle, against an enemy without an offensive air capability, is a craven token gesture to save face whilst proving no real support.

*Note that both Tories and Labour put forward motions to do something about Assad, it was a political battle, not an ethical - and most Labour supporters were as embarrassed at Cameron afterwards, and shocked he just walked away.

The Vote of Shame

"I will resign, and call an immediate general election. It will be an election held on the issue of which party the British people most trust to protect themselves",

historically doing that sort of thing often rebounds and the voters decide they really don't like you - remember Ted Heath and the "Who governs Britain" election ?? That was clearly about the UK and the electorate voted him out

the probelm is YOU think you can control the debate but you can't - it is liable to spiral off in all directions - such as all those people who face losing some of their benifits under Osborn......

and an election would be a month away at least - and a week is a long time in politics...

and under the Fixed term Act they can vote against action in Iraq but refuse to allow a snap election - it needs a specific majority to call an election not the old "Vote of Confidence" and turkeys do not vote for Christmas

He'd have to resign and HMQ then could as Boris to form another Tory Govt .....

Far from a "Vote of Shame", Parliament got it right in 2013. The proposed action was utterly pointless. As Lord Richards wisely stated on Today this morning, the only force on the ground in Syria that is sufficiently large and disciplined to defeat the extremists is Assad's army. That much was blindingly obvious two years ago, probably even (privately) to those who had to stick publicly to their governmental lines on training of "moderate" rebels. The doggedness with which the US and UK governments stick to the Saudi line on Assad appals me.

I think the country, and most likely Parliament, would be behind Cameron if he softened his stance on Assad and made ISIL the clear focus of any new vote on Syria.

ES, quite, a sovereign force on its own territory and internal lines of communication against rag tag rebels reliant on capricious foreign support.

In truth, however, apart from the coastal plain around Latakia and a strip down to Damascus, the Syrian army doesn't hold a lot of ground these days.

Map of Syrian Civil war/ Global conflict in Syria - liveuamap.com

Yes ORAC, that is true today, but it wasn't the case when the "Vote of Shame" was taken. I give Lord Richards great credit on this - as CDS he advised Cameron that supporting "moderates" was not a credible or moral course of action, seeing as how it would prolong civil conflict and increase the number of casualties, but he was overruled by other members of the NSC. Those in the region, and increasingly those outside it, are experiencing the consequences of Western leaders' woolly thinking during the first two years of the so-called "Arab Spring".

Given the irredeemable fragmentation of the non-ISIL opposition, I can't see how anything short of a externally-supported resurgence by Assad's forces can possibly re-establish control on the ground. Western armies are not the answer; that is one lesson we definitely have learned over the last 15 years. If there is an alternative, partition into a Shia-Druze-Christian state under Assad (with a Mediterranean base for Putin) and a Sunni-only state under a puppet of Riyadh would appear to offer the best chance of stability - but what a terrible message that would send about the ability of Middle Eastern peoples to live together in harmony. Ahem.

FWIW, having the destroyer there provides a bit more than just AD for the de Gaulle. The simple for the media to digest sound byte barely covers what putting forces in the area can achieve or abet.

As to moderate freedom fighters ... can whomever the Saudis send money to really be moderate? :confused:

Given a free choice, would you prefer to hold a coastal strip, a port and a capital, or the hinterland and no obvious LOC?

If I read the map correctly Syrian Army, Red, holds the high value cards.

The only thing of value that the Syrian government earned foreign currency from was oil. And ISIS hold all of them.....

There is always a buyer, and a lot of the air effort is going into shutting down the export routes - not with a great deal of excess.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...ia_oil_624.gif

Who Is Buying The Islamic State’s Illegal Oil?

...........The size of the group’s bank account has now risen to an estimated $2 billion dollars, thanks in part to revenues from ransom paid for kidnapped foreigners and more pillaging. However, oil remains the group’s primary source of income.

The 11 oil fields that IS controls in Iraq and Syria have made it a largely independent financial machine. Reports show that IS-controlled fields in Iraq produce between 25,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil per day, at an estimated value of approximately $1.2 million, before being smuggled out to Iran, Kurdistan, Turkey and Syria........

What’s more, now that it controls fertile provinces in western Iraq, such as Anbar and Nineveh, the group also now sits on 40 percent of Iraq’s wheat crop, and can force farmers to deal only with them, sometimes for no pay......

Did you mean "not with a great deal of success?"
The oil part of it should be traceable.
Only if they can keep getting it to market and keep production running. Identify, publicly out, and apply pressure to the customers of this illicit oil trade ... hmmm, good luck with that, as I recall Saddam getting around the oil export embargo without that much trouble during the 90's, albeit at reduced volumes.
But it has to be refined. IS that not a logistic choke point that can be exploited?
A non trivial problem, to be sure.



Questions:

1. How does Syrian government retake the Deir Al Zour region?
2. How do they keep it?

For that matter

1. How does Mosul get retaken in Iraq?
2. Who runs it?

Answering those four questions seems to be the first answer to getting Daesh out of their position. Note, it took just over a year of fighting to get ISIS/Daesh out of Baiji.

One imagines many people in Whitehall working on Cameron's briefing paper on air strikes in Syria that he promises to deliver to Parliament in the next few days.

I would love to see two things:

a. A clearly stated military objective.

b. A clearly stated political objective.

I don't think I will hold my breath though.

The Islamic State raises millions of dollars a week ...



Last year, ISIS raised ~ $20 million from kidnapping alone, according to US Treasury Department. (Not sure how they figured this out ...)ISIS made more smuggling oil than first estimated.






(Bullet points, summary from the source)@lars: if you want to see a clearly defined and executed strategy that might work, check any history web site and look at Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan that was the initial plan to defeating the CSA. It wasn't all that popular since it would not put down the rebellion quickly. It's ideological child, born a couple of years later, more or less worked as Grant and then Sherman put into place the plan that shut down the South's economic engines one at a time, while the battles in Virginia went back and forth. People are currently calling such an approach to Daesh "the long squeeze" in some of the commentary I've seen, but that's talking heads.

What a government leader will "sell" to the legislature or the public is quite another matter.

Thing is we don't have the death penalty for murder in the UK. I don't even think we even really have the law to enforce XPD (Expedient Demise) as Len Deighton wrote in the brilliant book (STBC here).
Why the death penalty applicable abroad then? That the state can kill its own citizen without recourse to a judge or a jury? We are not in a declared state of war. ISIS has made our own elected Govt. put us into a very dark place with this. ISIS have reduced us to this self-enforced low level with a few simple barbaric acts. Sorry Riley, we agree to disagree. Our elected MPs have to my knowledge never debated and decided upon this drastic course of state action. Forget John - it's the ground-stone basic principals of our British law and the role of the state which we seem to be dramatically abandoning very (far too) quickly.

Mach I think multiple issues are rapidly evolving. I don't think our UK mainland Police once a force, now a service (see that?) can presently even remotely cope with the present high threat if it becomes actual.
Forcibly very evident how well the rich and powerful in this country are guarding themselves at present. Cenotaph on RS; a ring of police/security around HM Queen, her subs and members of HM Govt. 6 hours later, I'm still in the pub, the Police have gone and we are truly on our own.
The media debate is very selfishly focused on guarding the capital and those most powerful who reside and work within it. What exactly about the other 50 odd million who reside here on the same islands? The runes don't read well.
One UK Police force in recent history couldn't even react correctly when 1 mad taxi driver went on the gun rampage in west Cumbria.
My local force have very few ARV, would take many minutes to form up and react to an Mumbai/Paris type incident.
I would seriously back well trained, experienced UK troops in an urban situation, because it's all we really have.
The authorities in the UK have had decades to come to some sensible arrangements, but seem to have achieved very little.
Concede it's a massive political loss of face to have to use military for domestic security and there we have the answer to the question.

* Apologies - been trying to post this back all day. But was blocked out from doing so by my companies own internet policy. I work alongside hundreds of French er workers, many with loved ones, friends etc in Paris... they bore up well - live news feeds must be torture.

Got to disagree ORAC. Think the vote really failed because the UK public have lost faith with UK military ability in these situations. And that reflected onto all MPs who give a damn. I personally e-mailed my MP and told him what to do ie vote against it). He didn't give a damn what I thought. And is no longer an MP (funny that, he lost his seat).
Cameron is desperate to join in. He is so strange, such a strange beast. Reduce the military capability, but look for war. How quickly he must have ripped that poppy off last Sunday.
How much does 1 x smart bomb cost?* (23,000 USD = 1 x GBU 10 whatever that is, according to google, just now - about the same as a Private or Corporal in the Army gets?). Why not save buying them, spend the money on a real defence force for within the UK's own islands?
* That French assault this morning expended 5000 rounds fired, BBC World are reporting!! I doubt the whole on-duty UK police force has that number of bullets available altogether at any given minute. (standfast PSNI)?

I hear daesh has been subject to a cyber attack and had its Twitter accounts taken down

How is that harmful? :8:}