It just seems a bit strange to me. The push to get a mandate from the UK parliament, from the UK Govt. seemed massive. Dominated the news in the UK. Now they have it, nothing much has actually happened recently, within the last 10 days.. It seemed very stage managed - an immediate raid literally minutes after the vote was made, and this was well reported. And since then, not a lot of UK air attacks at all.
Why is this?
Surely that goes against modern air operations. Certainly the previous ones I took a part in, sustained operations of a certain tempo were the way it was done.
Rumour is rife on other parts of the net, and in some sections of more independent online available newspapers, about what is actually going on. About whose side the UK really is on and what the actual end game, the real aim actually is.
To still say the UK role is to assist in the bombing of ISIS..destroy them..this is very simplistic and not at all true.


Someone well known within UK politics had gone further though, much further - and then dried up a bit.
Surprised, bearing in mind some people on here and their pretty high level of intelligence haven't gone further either.
The UK and France's Suez campaign wasn't all it seemed either in 1956 and it unravelled soon enough. Wonder if this one will as well?

About oil. The pipeline that would be built. Who supplies Europe in the end and from where. Who doesn't want who to be in charge at the end of the war. Its nowhere near as straightforward as what it seems, we all know this anyway.
But the tempo of the RAF bombing, the sudden urgency has totally slacked off and there is a reason for that, which you aren't being told.
The RAF have what, 16 highly capable FB aircraft in situ - a very potent little package, suddenly doing very little.
All isn't what it seemed.
Goodnight. (Got to sleep, not being rude - I work damned hard, still).

The RAF have been bombing targets nearly every day (except the 12th).

They've all been in Iraq and are listed here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3362325/Britain-carried-NO-airstrikes-against-ISIS-Syria-week-despite-vow-target-head-snake.html

Regardless of what has happened since the vote, it seems pretty clear that the missions that night were more political than tactical. Equally the timing of that vote was most like political. The political temperature was right; the probability of a favourable vote was high.

Consider now, ignoring the post-vote furore, would a vote be as assured?

I think it was important to have political agreement to operations in Syria so that we could take action as required.