UK took part in strike that killed Syrian soldiers
 

British aircraft took part in air strike that killed dozens of Syrian soldiers, Ministry of Defence confirms | The Independent

What are the legalities involved here? This involvement isn't sanctioned by the UN. Would Syria have the right to appeal or ask the UN to expel US and UK forces?

Who on the UNSCR will vote to take such action? (Expel US and UK in areas where the Syrian government has No control and has more or less ceded sovereignty as part of its five year long civil war with a variety of factions trying to toss out the Assad regime ...) Oh, wait, I am pretty sure that there are two members on the UNSCR who won't. Fail.


The Syrian government can file a protest. If they have not already, I suspect that they will. If they file it in the GA they'll at least get some PR/Propaganda/sentiment points with people sympathetic to their cause.

Just curious: do you understand how the UN really works, or are you not familiar with its actual function when it comes to collective security activity? When it comes to expelling one group of folks from a territory, you might wish to review three cases:
1. South Korea. (more or less successful, with side effects)
2. Kuwait. (Successful)
3. Bosnia. (Unsuccessful when it was the UN alone, successful when a regional collective security organization, NATO, decided to act and tell the UN Dual Key RoE twits to take a hike).


In each case, the involvement of the UNSCR, and in particular its permanent members, had a significant influence on what action the UN did, or did not, take.

That's war and things happen. I did not read the exact statement of the US representatives, but even in the Russian media it was said that they expressed regrets, if not apologies. IMHO, that's more than enough in this particular situation, and the others in the US-led coalition may not elaborate more as they were obviouly getting the target information from US.


Syrian government can file the protest, and likely will, otherwise it would lose the "remainders of its face". But it does not control a significant part of its territory and better shut up letting the others wipe the garbage out of their territory.


UN is toothless, and the only thing that really matters is to make real forces operating in this filed (read, US/NATO and Russia) talk to each other and coordinate their activities. Russia is likely having better ISR as they are operating in Syria (i.e. not coming from Iraq like the coalition does) and Syrian land forces (who are reporting to them) can obviously better locate small Daeash groups than UAVs and sats. The coalition has more hi-pres weapons on the theatre, so there might be a place for "synergy".


There were some signs of hope that such a coordination plan was being worked out not long ago, but it was not disclosed and thus it's difficult to judge. I wonder why it is kept in confidence. Were there anything about kurds that would make Erdogan angry (which neither Russia, nor US are interested in)?

Has HoC approved use of RAF in Syria ?

Yes (min 10 characters) Yes

Legalities aside, the Syrian troops killed were fighting OUR enemies and some were reportedly crucified in the IS attack enabled by our air strikes. No, there's not much the UN or anyone else are about to do about it but it's still a good day for IS. Why would our tactical picture have been so much less accurate than that of the Russians who called a halt?

@ShotOne: fog of war? It happens even in this day and age.


Anyone who tells you differently is either lying, or trying to sell you something. (Possibly both)

The shyster lawyers will be rubbing their hands.

Some 15,000 French civilians killed on or about D-Day. Collateral damage was expected. They didn't cancel Operation Overlord because of this..

RAAF is in headlines here about the Syrian event

there were 2 F16s and 2 A10s (only used by USAF) in the action

now Denmark, UK and Australia accept responsibility for two possible planes, something stinks big time here

Thanks Lonewolf.

I understand how the UN works or in reality doesn't work. I also understand the double standard applied by the permanent UNSC members which from your reply makes the whole UN a complete farce.

Fog of war I don't think so. It's no secret the US and its coalition is to over throw the current Syrian government. They have supplied training and weapons to the opposition groups. This is not a blue on blue situation.


That was a different era when carpet bombing of cities was accepted by all sides.

The F-16s were Danish. A-10s US. Reaper UK. Possibly the Australian assets were a KC-30A and/or E-7A Wedgetail?

Danish F-16s part of attack that allegedly hit Syrian forces - The Local

And the JTACs?

Getting at least four different air forces together must have involved advanced coordination. We have sensors which can identify a particular individual and follow his daily routine. Trotting out a phrase like "fog of war" doesn't explain it. Wasn't there supposed to be a truce (now comprehensively shattered!) in place, anyhow?

Well, looks like the right to moral indignation has been lost.

Syria conflict: UN suspends all aid after convoy hit - BBC News

ShotOne wrote

The truce didn't cover ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham.

Syrian ceasefire: Is it all over after aid convoy strike? - CNN.com

Use of barrel bombs (allegedly) against the convoy seems to point the finger

@flyhardmo:


EDIT: -deleted my noise_unneeded carping.


I just agree with you that it's not in the class of "blue on blue" -- given the Crayola Crayon box of colors with all of the different fighting factions in that area, I am not sure how to color code it.

Beyond that, as a career military man, if you for one minute think that anyone is immune to the fog of war, in the year 2016, then you may be buying into too much propaganda from the USAF shills and a wide variety of arms and systems salesmen. The adverts don't tell the whole story.

It's alive and well, the fog of war, all electric gizmos considered.


@Shot One. You know better, and yes, it's alive and well as of this morning. It takes so little to create confusion.


EDIT to add: coordination between the Russians and the West has had some effort put into it, I am unaware of any coordination attempts between the West and Syria even though in some areas we are after the same faction, and in other areas the West is supporting a faction that is fighting the Syrians.


The opportunity for confusion abounds. The problem with "who to support and who to bomb" amplifies it. (Heck, it's hard enough to keep it clean when there is just one enemy).

Now on BBC claim by US that Russian aircraft targeted the convoy. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said

I watched the American UN ambassador on TV and her sheer contempt for the 60 odd soldiers killed. A 3-second response was like " yes sure **** happens".

But she was much more concerned and outraged at the Russians for daring to challenge the US involvement in the event.