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

No.
1 - nil.
Respectfully, keep going below if you want to.
Parliament is voting soon, I'm interested in how intelligent, combat experienced people on Prune see and read the world, and how they would vote, compared to the opposite (our UK politicians of all parties).
Free vote, no whip. UK nationals only.

Yes, if ground forces from the region are in place to exploit the effect, if not then really the only thing available is a few thermonuclear weapons to eradicate the infection (the equivalent of radical amputation in cases of sepsis).

1-1

No, concentrate on the jihadist trash in Iraq. Russia and the French can deal with Syria. Anyone else think that suggestions from the politicians that only by bombing Syria can we play our part ? What a bloody insult to the lads doing the job over Iraq at present.

Smudge

Yes.
 

I believe we will.

I also believe we should. Why let a border stop our forces from prosecuting a target?

BV

Reluctantly I follow BV. Both or neither, bit like ROE that doesn't allow you to shoot a baddie in the back - now you can, now you can't.

No.
We (coalition forces AND the UN) need to have a viable plan for troops on the ground and a viable plan on what to do when we think we have 'won'. No repeats of Iraq and Libya, please.

3-3 so far and I suspect, in the main, for the same reason.

Not sure if Pierre is allowed given the OP rules?

Yes.

But I do wish everyone would stop saying we are going to be 'Bombing Syria'. We need to be bombing 'ISIS' (which I understand is now the plan), not 'Syria'. The more we propagate 'Lets Bomb (or Not Bomb) Syria', the more the anti-war lobby use past errors to delay any action at all and allow for ISIS to prosper. The longer term strategy for Syria (and the region) is a different issue that I don't think our politicians are close to getting to grips with sadly.

Yes. But only to add a bit more to the general effort against IS. I have no illusions that we would even make a decisive contribution to ending the Syrian civil war, or should even be thinking about 'reconstruction'. We will likely kill a few scumbags when and if our crazy ROE allow.

Flug

No, if for no other reason that we will be joining in the bombing of Syria, Burrito, and for no useful purpose. Call Me Dave's 70,000 ground troops are even more bogus than Bliar's 45 mins WoMD.

Let's have a big NO to "Recreational Bombing"

Change the RoE, then I'll agree to committing Armed Forces.

I want a clear plan to Destroy IS, not "Interdict", "Contain", "Degrade" or any of the other rubbish I have heard from politicians since this whole sad affair started. I don't think that can be done without a radically-changed attitude to the RoE.

Yes, it is our best effort for assymetric warfare in our favour... 💣💣💣

A reluctant 'yes', on the basis that:

1) Defeating ISIL in Iraq, where the ground they vacate will be controlled by the Iraqi government or the Kurds, will be made easier if we can also attack ISIL in its logistic hinterland of eastern Syria. On this point, if ISIL try to make a big issue of a British vote to extend operations into Syria, we have an immediate strategic communications coup. ISIL claims to have established a Caliphate and does not recognise the border between Syria and Iraq, so according to their own narrative, the UK is already bombing them. As such, a vote in favour of action should be irrelevant. If they claim it changes things, it means they actually recognise there is a border, which undermines their claim to power.

2) I am not convinced that we need a credible follow-on plan in place for Eastern Syria. Nothing could be worse than what already exists there. So the lack of a plan is not a reason to deny ourselves the potential benefits of my point 1).

3) Our military commanders have enough sense about them to keep our aircraft away from potential conflicts between Russia and Turkey near the Turkish border.

4) I am not too worried about mission creep. Everyone knows that Western troops would be entering an IED- and ambush-filled bloodbath, would struggle to gain local acceptance and would almost immediately have to go into self-protection mode to assuage public anxiety at home. This would render them militarily ineffective, as seen in our last two big Middle Eastern ground wars. I think the military leadership is sensible enough to see this now (finally) and will keep its ambitions strictly limited.

But I am under no illusion that extending our mission into Syria will either be decisive militarily, or contribute to ending the long-term conflict. Doing that requires us to look again at our relationships with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc for reasons that I have bored on about elsewhere, not just for the good of the region, but for the future of open western societies as well.

5-7.

Yes, give them no quarter. They are worse than feral dogs and we are better off without them. I will shed no tear for any of them regardless who bore them, raised them and still sees them as their offspring. They are beyond rehabilitation and so the only suitable place for them is to be taken from the planet that we have tried to share with them.

Yes.

At least if we're forced to fight with one arm tied behind our backs by bleeding heart liberals and leftist loonies, then they have nothing tangeable to touch our aircraft with whilst we procrastinate during targetting boards.

I, like Iraven, do not wish to share the planet with these scum anymore...

http://www.longwarjournal.org/assets...0x315-4546.png

The B Word

Yes.

I make that 10 votes 'yes' and 5 votes 'no'. A favourable majority so far.

CPL Clott

No, we can't even look after our own.

YES, for all the above reasons. If these scumbags had the capability to attack us in the same way this question wouldn´t even be asked.


They have no RoE, why should we?

Yes,
There is no place in this life for them, we should facilitate their transition to the next.

All those that say 'no' should be invited to go and meet some Jihadis for a discussion/peace talks.

Ah, I thought not. For pity's sake wake up - these are not people that we can reason with.

Also, also this garbage about 'recreational bombing' - FFS, we hardly do this for fun! There is a careful target development process to check that the target is valid and where the weapons effect will be examined, is carefully employed and ensures that no innocent parties are killed where at all possible. :mad:

I always thought that pacifists and conscientious objectors should be put in front of any assault to give the enemy one last chance - who knows they might even get the enemy forces to expend a few munitions first and do something useful!

The B Word

13-6 so far I think in favour. TBH this is probably not the best place to ask whether it's a good thing or not.

Anyone checked out MumsNet?
It's old but still has relevant comment

My instinct says yes. My heart says yes. My head says I wish I knew more hard facts. The days of having access to hard facts offered a much easier choice. Basing the decision of going to war again on Daily Mail reports seems a tad factious.

I would go with air strikes, but with a fulsome follow-up plan.

The question is perhaps a bit out of date.
'We' are already bombing Isis in the form of the RAF bombing them in Iraq.
'We' are already bombing them in Syria in the form the of the French Air Force conducting missions in Syria.

Hopefully it hasn't passed un noticed, but young kids from the UK have already been leaving in large numbers for Syria. They have come from all over Europe to join ISIS and fight 'us' in the form of western people in Europe and 'bad muslims' in the Middle East.
If someone is naive enough to believe that Isis wouldn't target the mainland uk (again) as the RAF aren't flying over Syria then I may have a bridge in London for sale that's going cheap :)

No.


Completely ineffective. Conventional methods in an unconventional fight simply do not work & will eventually be counter productive.

No - doesn't work - look at any of the countries we recently bombed for peace and retribution - a bigger mess than ever, all of them.

I will add that I also think we should try negotiating with Isis first as that crosses a tick off the list for some people. The problem isn't that Isis would kill the negotiators as they have and do grant gauranteed safe passage for some people.
The problem would be choosing what the questions from the UK would be.

Albert

Define 'bigger mess' - there are an awful lot of women in Afghanistan that would disagree! The take down of Taliban senior leadership by kinetic strikes has proven very effective in shaping the environment for allowing education, amongst other things, to flourish. Yes, it's not an instant solution, but taking bad people away for good can have a significant effect and help those struggling to hold, or get, power to get a grip.

"Between 2001 and 2010, primary school enrolment rose from around 1 million to nearly 7 million (a sevenfold increase in eight years) and the proportion of girls from virtually zero to 37%. It was reported in May 2013 that there were 16,000 schools across Afghanistan, with 10.5 million students. Education Minister Wardak stated that 3 million children remained deprived of education and requested $3 billion to construct 8,000 additional schools over next two years."

Yes or No?
 

Da, pozhaluysta!

My no vote was based on my total inability to believe a word that the Bacon stabber says. How long before we get some "target drift" to Assad assets ? Of course, who cares, but then the pig headed fornicator is delivering his desires of two years ago, that was rejected by our parliament. Like Blair before him, his double dealing leads many to disbelieve any honesty he proclaims. I stand by NO !

Smudge

I am a fence sitter on this

The yes side of me for all the reasons cited before.

The no because..

1. The region will only get some sense of stability with all the local states working to together

2. Desert storm proved the template for this and to some extent was effective at uniting international will

3. There needs to be an after action plan or at least intent. I do see the opportunity with this to right some of the wrong with Iraq and Libya by getting points 1 and 2 right. Syria, Egypt and Iraq did have a functioning management class that can turn this around with the right plan and support. Let's not go through the de bathing again.. One reason Germany turned around was recognition that some people became nazis through little choice and keeping them in post kept the country running... Iraq de bathing everything was not a smart move.

4 I don't believe any of this can work without boots on the ground as per 1,2 and 3 above and this needs a mainly Muslim force to do so, otherwise it just fuels not only Isis but the bad feeling at home as well.

Hope the above makes sense, it is past bed time and nurse has given me some port.

Just for the record I am in the uk now sitting on the south coast enjoying retirement

Smudger

That argument sounds like a personal political statement/disagreement rather than a judgement on the actual matter. 3 years ago the plan was to bomb Assad - the MPs rejected that on behalf of the people as most believed that regime change was not our business. However, we are voting on surgically targetting IS - not Assad - that is more and more becoming our business! So your argument and personal attacks would seem to have clouded your reasoning.

LJ

Hi there Kitbag
Your comment at #7 shows the danger of accepting everything at face value - UK national enough to have served in the Royal Air Force for 16 years (including with the Blue Steel-armed Victor) and now the owner of a bus pass!
Come to think of it - never accept at face value what a politician says, either.
Bon soir.

I think I'm with Courtney on this one. Having been a LO out in the region for a large part of 14-15, and having had to see things I will never forget and would never want anybody else to have to see, I would instinctively say yes, but with caveats

D'aesh (the Arabic acronym for ISIL which they hate) are wholly unreconcilable. If we could talk to them, I'd say give it a go, but you can't. They understand one thing and one thing only. Given their love for death and their burning desire to meet their God, taking everyone else with them in the process I am only too happy for us to arrange the meeting. But, and it's a big but. Whilst my head is telling my heart that taking the gloves off will feel good, it is saying 'but what will it achieve?' In voting yes, I would like to see the following:

An unrestricted campaign with a political end state and a left/right of arc, and after that no political interference. Political meddling (damn democracy!) has left us in this strategically incoherent position of insisting on recognising a line on the map that our enemy doesn't. We can't fight with ur hands tied behind our backs if the politicians really want to achieve something; they have to trust us to meet their intent in the best and most humane way possible.

Targets must be significant, worthwhile and designed to cause maximum damage. Without second guessing planners and targeteers, dropping the odd PW on a machine guns post or the occasional technical or vehicle park is frankly about as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Targets must be chosen with the strategic plan in mind, not just to generate headlines and stats for the BBC and RAF News. If that means flying Psy Ops / IO missions to clear an are in advance - as the US did last week when a flight of A -10s I believe, made short work of a huge number of fuel tankers after dropping leaflets warning drivers to clear the area. - so be it. Minimise casualties, but don't shirk the difficult choices.

Whilst the air campaign must be unrestricted, the overall scope of the West's involvement must be restricted. Air alone will not solve this and ground forces are required; but they must be regional ground forces using western air assets to give the asymmetrical advantage.

Finally, this must be part of a bigger strategy. There will need to be measures in place at home to prevent a repeat of the Paris attacks, and there must be long term strategic thought from the outset. Like it or not, bombing Da'esh now will not win the war of ideas; that is a generational thing., but generational struggles don't generate good copy or win elections. At best, it will buy the moderate world time to work out what to do, but it won't solve the problem. There must must must be a credible follow up plan. And part of this follow up plan must be what to do with al Qaeda who will end up as the strongest party on the Syrian battlefield once D'aesh are defeated. Yes, that's my prediction. I'll say again, based on regional experience, we must be prepared for AQ to be the dominant player in Syria once D'aesh is defeated - how do we deal with that?

In case anybody thinks I've gone totally wibble, here's my thinking. D'aesh and AQ are both Sunni extremists but of different hues. D'aesh's philosophy is to seize territory and then beat and bully people into submission before proudly claiming to have so many millions of supporters though out a caliphate. On the other hand, AQ take the long game. They recognise that it takes time and you have to bring people with you if you are to have a sustainable form of domination that doesn't burn hot, bright and short. Only once you've got the peoples' hearts and minds do you declare the caliphate.

Whilst D'aesh in Syria are obvious, AQ are not so. Instead they are represented in Syria by Jabhat al Nusra who have proven themselves very capable on the battlefield, often working along side the moderate opposition. However, rather than beheading and crucifying people, throwing them off buildings, chopping limbs off, they are playing the long game, building a support base amongst the populace, fighting the Regime on the one hand whilst providing support and social services on the other hand, all the while practising a moderate extremism. However, they will eventually have to show their hand and I fear that when they do, when D'aesh has been defeated, it will be too late and they - and therefor AQ - will have an entrenched position in Syria and Syria 2016 becomes a re-run of the Taleban hosting AQ in 2001.

That's my thinking on all this, a qualified yes. If our leaders can think long term, past the headlines and understandable desire to lash out and actually come up with a plan that achieves something rather than a plan that gives the impression of doing something, then yes, take the gloves off and let's get on with it. Whether we are capable of getting on with a Syria surge, well that's another matter entirely.

No, unless we have been invited/allowed by the government of Syria to hammer one particular lot of baddies.


Iraq has lost much of the north to the black tide, but the government in Baghdad are still the legitimate authority and we have a mandate there, supported by the UN and the world community.


British credibility in the ME could be better bolstered by a clear philosophy, rather than by traditional banditry.

One is starting to see some of Blair in Cameroon.

Difficult to say action wise, but if you are bombing them in Iraq how on earth is bombing them in Syria going to make us a greater target as some of the opposition says, that logic seems lost on me.

Use the Military - all of it and don't go off half cocked. I have added a quote from Winston Churchill's "History of the Second World War" Vol 1 where he is explaining the British Government's part in events leading up to the War. Written in 1948, perhaps it still rings true today?




“We must regard as deeply blameworthy before history the conduct of not only the British National and mainly Conservative Government, but of the Labour Socialist and Liberal parties, both in and out of office, during this fateful period.Delight in smooth-sounding platitudes, refusal to accept unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electoral success irrespective of the vital interests of the State, genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation, obvious lack of intellectual vigour in both leaders of the British Coalition Government, marked ignorance of Europe and aversion from its problems in Mr Baldwin, the strong and violent pacifism which at this time dominated the Labour-Socialist Party, the utter devotion of the Liberals to sentiment apart from reality, the failure and worse than failure of Mr Lloyd-George, the erstwhile great war leader, to address himself to the continuity of his work, the whole supported by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Parliament: all these constituted a picture of British fatuity and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile, was not devoid of guilt, and, though free from wickedness and evil design, played a definite part in unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries which, even so far as they have unfolded, are already beyond comparison in Human existence.”

No.

Our bombing will have no effect except cost us money. Our only effect would be political.

If the question was "do you think we should have a proper total war gloves off, troops on the ground against them?" then yes.

Good summary Melchie, and the same reason I said No. None of your conditions are being met currently, and the last 12 years shows us they will never be met once Forces are committed. Victory as the Objective, a strategic Plan, and 'harder' RoE first; then commit the Forces.

Yes. On largely the same rationale as Melchett.

The other driver is that the longer we leave them in place without at least hindering their ops, the more entrenched Daesh will be and the worse the refugee crisis will become.

None of it is perfect, but to be frank - as long as you have one axis supporting a Sunni side and another diametrically opposed one supporting the Shia side, it ain't going to get solved. The best that can be hoped for is that some form of federation may evolve.

Yes.

We are already bombing IS - all this will do is let us bomb IS is a slightly wider radius. It is not a significant shift in the operations that have been ongoing in Iraq for some time now.

I also don't think it is the only response that we or other nations need to be undertaking but those will need a clearer plan and significant commitment.