Should parliament endorse UK air strikes in Syria?

David Cameron made a characteristically fluent case on Thursday. But he did not actually answer the two critical questions that must precede any decision by Britain to initiate hostilities within Syria: namely, what is the political end game and what is the military plan to achieve it?

The first is incredibly difficult but not impossible. We need to drag all the interested parties around a table and hammer out a mutually acceptable solution.

If we are still a long way from a consensus, it is because most of the main players seem more intent on destabilising their enemies than stabilising their friends.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have a history of enabling financial support for any jihadi group that attacked the Shia – including Isis. Turkey has facilitated the sale of up to a billion dollars of Isis oil, has held open the border for jihadi groups and their intelligence agency has supplied arms to jihadis in Syria.

We need to bang our supposed allies’ heads together and stop this nonsense. It can be done. The Arab nations are waking up to the dangers of their own activities, with the sacking of some of their pro-Isis ministers. Similarly, the Russians need to grip the Iranians.

And we have to stop obsessing about Assad. His regime is vicious, but so is nearly every active player in this conflict. The British government’s line smacks of a retrospective wish to justify its abortive 2013 attempt to bomb him. But the Syrian government still controls most of the cities and is the only plausible guarantor of the safety of all the non-Sunni communities threatened by a jihadi victory. The wisest course is to start negotiations on the future of Syria and Iraq without any preconditions.

The second unanswered question is even harder. What is the military plan? Since we cannot win with air alone, this reduces to “where will we find a pro-western army?”

David Cameron asserted that the “Free Syrian Army” commanded 70,000 troops. What this probably refers to is a disparate range of up to 1,500 different tribes and villages, in possibly 40 loose associations. Many of these operate under the control of Isis or the two essentially al-Qaida affiliates. Only the Kurds are in truth independent of the jihadis.

Exellent article by David Davis along the lines of what I have been saying. You can read the full article here....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/should-parliament-endorse-uk-air-strikes-in-syria

David Davis is the Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden. He is a former shadow home secretary

Two excellent questions, for which we have no answer.

I'm not sure a consensus can be reached in our lifetime.  In order to reach a consensus, you need subscription of all interested parties.  I don't think this generation is amenable to that. (A) things are being led by religious dogma, and rational argument does not work against dogma. (B) the history of armed westerners moving on the Middle East itself is symbolic of the oppression of the west toward the east. The crusades go back to the 11th-century.

Second, does the military even belong in the fight?  These skirmishes are more in the nature of criminal/police type actions.  The military is designed to pit A-10s against tanks...ISIL only has a few pick-up trucks.  Once again, this is an asymmetrical conflict, where everything is done with IED and small arms.

Leave them alone, and be sure the last person leaving locks the door and turns out the lights.

Bombing is a waste of time ,money and possibly our Pilots lives. If you want to get rid of ISIS YOU HAVE TO PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND. There is no other way!

Cameron will probably make the same mistake that Blair made - by assuming that everyone in Syria is opposed to Assad. I think he wants to go for Assad more than ISIS, but regime change in Syria is not our business.

nicko wrote:Bombing is a waste of time ,money and possibly our Pilots lives.   If you want to get rid of ISIS YOU HAVE TO PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND.   There is no other way!

And to what end? You would just end up picking up the candy wrappers.

Just saying Quill, you cannot take ground and Hold it with bombing. As soon as the bombing is over the enemy will return and use the rubble for cover.

And that is hell for the infantry.

nicko wrote:Just saying Quill, you cannot take ground and Hold it with bombing.  As soon as the bombing is over the enemy will return and use the rubble for cover.

And that is hell for the infantry.

Yes, I agree. No different from a rainstorm. When it stops, people come back out.

But this is the same for the total concept of these invasions. You can occupy the place for 10-years, as we did in Iraq, and when you leave the bad guys come out and start all over again.

I like David Davis, I think he has a lot of honesty and integrity and talks a lot of sense...

I can't read the guardian from my phone for some reason Irn... could you post the full article here for me please?


And quill... ISIS have a lot more weaponry than just a few pick up trucks with guns mounted... are you completely misinformed or just plain lying!?


With regards to the OP... the situation is much more complex than we are routinely fed by the msm... as Davis is saying.

nicko wrote:Just saying Quill, you cannot take ground and Hold it with bombing.  As soon as the bombing is over the enemy will return and use the rubble for cover.

And that is hell for the infantry.

The problem is we dont actually want the territory (Or at least supposed not to )
So why waste our boot when we aren't going to hold it, just take it and walk away.

with traditional warfare we would be better off having the boots of someone that want to stay there when all is over, But we know how that turns out since both Taliban and Saddam were once on the western side it is also a strategic problem with Iraq and all the way back in Vietnam. both are invasions with no plans to keep the conquered territory, So then what do you do when you take it? I dunno, and neither did Washington during the Vietnam or Iraq/Afghan wars 

Tommy Monk wrote:And quill... ISIS have a lot more weaponry than just a few pick up trucks with guns mounted... are you completely misinformed or just plain lying!?

Are they saving it? So far, they have shown no navy, nor an Air Force. They just seem to have pick-up trucks and small arms. Even their explosives are improvised explosive devices. It's not as if they have a munitions factory anywhere.

Really, they're organized criminals. Which is why we stumble all over ourselves (eg, bombing DWB Hospitals and the like) when we try to treat them like an opposing military force. It's a complete waste.

veya_victaous wrote:

nicko wrote:Just saying Quill, you cannot take ground and Hold it with bombing.  As soon as the bombing is over the enemy will return and use the rubble for cover.

And that is hell for the infantry.

The problem is we dont actually want the territory (Or at least supposed not to )
So why waste our boot when we aren't going to hold it, just take it and walk away.

with traditional warfare we would be better off having the boots of someone that want to stay there when all is over, But we know how that turns out since both Taliban and Saddam were once on the western side it is also a strategic with Iraq and all the way back in Vietnam. both are invasions with no plans to keep the conquered territory, So then what do you do when you take it? I dunno, and neither did Washington during the Vietnam or Iraq/Afghan wars 

No territory?  Hell...no purpose.  After we win--whatever that is--what, will we ask them to behave thereafter?  Right...a lot of good that will do.

They've got problems in that part of the world.  It's not our problem. I say, get out and post signs:

Spot on Veya!

It would be utter madness to bomb, and against the interests of the Syrian people, who are already being bombed by so many differents factions.  Kurds are fighting ISIS, Turkey is bombing Kurds and shooting down Russian planes, Russia re bombing groups that the US is arming, ISIS are high on amphetamines, probably supplied by Saudi and are making huge profits on selling oil that Turkey is suspected on buying, Assad is barrel bombing the people, Planet Syria as desperate for a no-fly zone to stop so many civilians casualities, the people of Raqqa are saying please don't bomb it will kill us not ISIS,  and we want to add to the mix by bombing some more and cause more refugees!  If it wasn't so desperately serious you would think it was the plot of a comedy show.  If we enter into this madness it will be worse than Iraq and as unjustified as Iraq.

The land has to be taken back by Infantry, [not ours]
When totally cleared of ISIS the people can return to start living there again. A UN peace keeping army, a
"proper army" not the useless load of crap that passes for one that we have now will be used to stop any ISIS
people from returning to start up their savagery again.
Meanwhile all help and assistance should be given to those who need it to help in rebuilding their lives. how long the UN force will have to stay there, I have no idea.

nicko wrote:The land has to be taken back by Infantry, [not ours]
When totally cleared of ISIS the people can return to start living there again. A UN peace keeping army, a
"proper army" not the useless load of crap that passes for one that we have now will be used to stop any ISIS
people from returning to start up their savagery again.
Meanwhile all help and assistance should be given to those who need it to help in rebuilding their lives. how long the UN force will have to stay there,    I have no idea.

Are peace-keeping armies much use Nicko? I'm sure I've read that they're not allowed to intervene very much if people start killing each other.

RAGGS, I saw in Bosnia UN forces stand back and let Serbian Army forces take away hundreds of Muslim men and boys .and kill them in cold blood. Dutch UN peace keepers, when challenged by Serbian army gave up their weapons and allowed themselves to be handcuffed to telegraph poles, OUR army boys were sniped at by Serbs and were told Not to return fire on UN orders.One of our Tank commanders,
Colonel Bob Stewart told his gunner to take out the sniper with the Tanks 30mm cannon, he did just that! Colonel Stewart was reprimanded and returned to Britain where he retired from the Army.Unless the UN starts to show some guts they are worse than useless.----------Rant over!

RAGGS, I saw in Bosnia UN forces stand back and let Serbian Army forces take away hundreds of Muslim men and boys .and kill them in cold blood. Dutch UN peace keepers, when challenged by Serbian army gave up their weapons and allowed themselves to be handcuffed to telegraph poles, OUR army boys were sniped at by Serbs and were told Not to return fire on UN orders.One of our Tank commanders,
Colonel Bob Stewart told his gunner to take out the sniper with the Tanks 30mm cannon, he did just that! Colonel Stewart was reprimanded and returned to Britain where he retired from the Army.Unless the UN starts to show some guts they are worse than useless.----------Rant over!

Sorry, double post, don't know why.

nicko wrote:RAGGS,  I saw in Bosnia UN forces stand back and let Serbian Army forces take away hundreds of Muslim men and boys .and kill them in cold blood.   Dutch UN peace keepers, when challenged by Serbian army gave up their weapons and allowed themselves to be handcuffed to telegraph poles, OUR army boys were sniped at by Serbs and were told Not to return fire on UN orders.One of our Tank commanders,
Colonel Bob Stewart told his gunner to take out the sniper with the Tanks 30mm cannon, he did just that!   Colonel Stewart was reprimanded and returned to Britain where he retired from the Army.Unless the UN starts to show some guts they are worse than useless.----------Rant over!

That's the sort of thing I was thinking of Nicko - the situation in Bosnia. Wasn't there some rule that they weren't allowed to intervene under certain conditions or something?

Also, they'd need an awful lot of peace-keeping troops. I don't believe that the situation will be resolved whereby there will only be one group which is a threat to others. There are so many groups of rebels now, along with ISIS, and the Government forces that there's no way they're all going to be defeated once and for all. Even if they are, they'll be other groups springing up which don't like the way things have been resolved. That's what it's like in those countries.

nicko wrote:The land has to be taken back by Infantry, [not ours]
When totally cleared of ISIS the people can return to start living there again. A UN peace keeping army, a
"proper army" not the useless load of crap that passes for one that we have now will be used to stop any ISIS
people from returning to start up their savagery again.

Then what? What do we do when the trouble starts all over again?

nicko wrote:Meanwhile all help and assistance should be given to those who need it to help in rebuilding their lives. how long the UN force will have to stay there,    I have no idea.

I have a bad feeling about this. MORE MONEY? We've already invested $17-trillion, and what have we got to show for it?

Stand back...it's starting again.

I would question that statement that most people prefer living in peace. It seems to me that in some countries they don't, they like to be constantly at war with someone, particularly countries in the Middle East.

When it comes to countries like the UK, being at war doesn't really involve much risk to themselves because all the action is in other countries. The main risk comes from retaliation in the form of terrorist attacks, but even then, that only involves people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I hope the UK joins in and helps rid the world of Isis and other rogue terrorists.

We NEED to strengthen our borders.

They only bombs should be on Syrian runways to stop their and Russian aircrafts taking off. Yet for some reason this is not being done.

Other air strikes are pointless. It will disperse the enemy and kill innocents instead. You think we have a refugee problem now, think again.

Which makes me think, does the West really want to eliminate Isis? Or are they a "useful enemy"?

Isis is a direct consequence of our interference in Iraq and Syria. So why is our solution to interfere again?

Let's not forget this method of gaining public consensus to kill the natives of another land is nothing new.

As George Bernard Shaw identified, our country sends in the missionaries (or aid workers, as they're called now), the missionaries try to civilise the natives (white mans burden). These days the white mans burden has changed to a global moral responsibility to be a police force and make the natives democratic. The natives resent interference and those natives on the wrong side kill the missionaries. The citizens of the imperialist powers become angry and give permission to our government to secure justice. Effectively sanctioning the government to conquer another land.

Shame we cannot learn from history.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:They only bombs should be on Syrian runways to stop their and Russian aircrafts taking off. Yet for some reason this is not being done.

Other air strikes are pointless. It will disperse the enemy and kill innocents instead. You think we have a refugee problem now, think again.

Which makes me think, does the West really want to eliminate Isis? Or are they a "useful enemy"?

Isis is a direct consequence of our interference in Iraq and Syria. So why is our solution to interfere again?

On what grounds do you think that the Syrian and Russian Governments are at fault here? Are you supportive of the rebels?

ISIS is not a direct consequence of our interference. They might be an indirect one to a degree, but nobody made them rampage through Iraq and Syria killing people who don't want to be as extreme as them.

Stormee wrote:I hope the UK joins in and helps rid the world of Isis and other rogue terrorists.

We NEED to strengthen our borders.

If we strengthen our borders so there's no chance of ISIS getting in here, and if we don't allow British citizens back who went off to join them - or put them in prison where they can't do any harm - do we actually need to bomb ISIS?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stormee wrote:I hope the UK joins in and helps rid the world of Isis and other rogue terrorists.

We NEED to strengthen our borders.

If we strengthen our borders so there's no chance of ISIS getting in here, and if we don't allow British citizens back who went off to join them - or put them in prison where they can't do any harm - do we actually need to bomb ISIS?

Now you are using your head.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If we strengthen our borders so there's no chance of ISIS getting in here, and if we don't allow British citizens back who went off to join them - or put them in prison where they can't do any harm - do we actually need to bomb ISIS?

Now you are using your head.

Yes, but neither of those things are going to happen are they?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Now you are using your head.

Yes, but neither of those things are going to happen are they?

I took your post to mean:

1. Do not allow the ISIL infection into Britain; and,

2. Leave them alone over there, which is the same as stopping the bombing.

There's an old rule of administration, which is...the less you pick up, them less you'll have to put down. It's the same with international conflict. The less conflict you involve yourself in, the less you will have to get out of.

And as we've learned with imprisonment and Guantanamo Bay, the less you undertake, the less you'll have to get out of.

That was the lesson we saw with President Bush, the Senior, who went into to Iraq and got out without burning his fingers (Desert Storm, 1990):

State Dept., Office of Historian wrote:Of all the policy successes during this era, the Department of State and President Bush are most clearly associated with the successful effort to roll back the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

He had a purpose, he went and did it, and he got out. He didn't try to exterminate the opposition, as we are when we say we want to eliminate ISIL. Isolate them, keep them away, and let them do what they will to each other...it's not our problem if we keep them in their cages.

What I say does not apply to non-combatants. I mean the militants who want to be there, fighting their nonsensical civil war.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Let's not forget this method of gaining public consensus to kill the natives of another land is nothing new.

As George Bernard Shaw identified, our country sends in the missionaries (or aid workers, as they're called now), the missionaries try to civilise the natives (white mans burden). These days the white mans burden has changed to a global moral responsibility to be a police force and make the natives democratic. The natives resent interference and those natives on the wrong side kill the missionaries. The citizens of the imperialist powers become angry and give permission to our government to secure justice. Effectively sanctioning the government to conquer another land.

Shame we cannot learn from history.

Yup. Or the indigenous people, treated like slaves, seeing their country torn to shreds and innocents killed, their natural resources taken away to the occupiers country, decide to strike back and then we get all morally righteous and wonder why we are being targeted.

Deja vu my friend

Cass, I am utterly ashamed of our Government tonight.  They stood and cheered when they found they could bomb Syrian kids, because they are the ones killed the most.  They called people who disagreed terrorist sympathisers (a tactic Hitler would have approved of).  Parliament Square is full of people laying on the ground in protest who say they will not go home, traffic at a standstill.  The worst night I have known for a long time.

sassy wrote:Cass, I am utterly ashamed of our Government tonight.  They stood and cheered when they found they could bomb Syrian kids, because they are the ones killed the most.  They called people who disagreed terrorist sympathisers (a tactic Hitler would have approved of).  Parliament Square is full of people laying on the ground in protest who say they will not go home, traffic at a standstill.  The worst night I have known for a long time.

I quite agree. I felt sick to my stomach. 2003, 2001 etc....I am thankful Mr. C is out of it but worried sick for our friends still serving.

Clusterf*ck doesn't even begin to cover it.

I feel completely desperate, so glad Mr C won't be part of it.

Dave is keen to build on the success of his campaign to liberate Libya and stand on a platform in Damascus to take the acclaim of the adoring masses just like he did in Tripoli. Didn't that turn out well.



6 Typhoons and an extra 2 Tornado's is hardly going to make a difference.

Can't we make him stand on a platform in Syria

sassy wrote:Can't we make him stand on a platform in Syria

He won't be anywhere near the place until it's safe to do so and with armed guards protecting him.

He will never see Damascus except on TV.

He's a complete and utter clown who must have his war.

Even Max Hastings said so on Newsnight tonight.

£125,000 for a Brimstone missile to take out a pick-up truck. Not the best use of assets is it? And how many nurses would that employ?

Thought we were skint.

Irn Bru wrote:£125,000 for a Brimstone missile to take out a pick-up truck. Not the best use of assets is it?  And how many nurses would that employ?

Thought we were skint.

Yea, funny that!

i have thought about the rights and wrongs of escalating the "fight" against ISiS because thats what we would doing and not in my mind without reason

bombs kill people , they don`t discriminate terrorist or civilian ,adult or child they kill them regardless we might rationalize the innocent losses with  the axium "the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few " :-) but in this case its the " evil of a few affecting the safety of the many "

i Would like to bomb the utter shit out of every one of the terrorists but in the long run thats just killing people and that breeds resentment  ,resentment  breeds hate .hate breeds evil and we are back to square one.

you also can`t bomb an idea, they are bomb proof,nuke proof,practically bullet proof to most aggression it you could kill an idea with a bombing campain it should have worked in 1945 but we still have nazi`s  

The things we could have done where not used and still to my knowledge not doing remove the crap from the Internet the hacking group anonymous seems to have done more damage in that area that the whole combined intelligence of the super powers have

Cut of there revenue ,attack and or remove there web presence from every server ,make it illegal to host Isis related material,
enforceable with sanctions
quite frankly you can do more actual damage that way than dropping bombs every really will and is a whole lot cheaper.

but the main problem they have is they are trying to fight a battle with the wrong weapons

The enemy is  able to recruit random and not so random nutter`s ,Make financial transaction  on a global scale,coordinate attacks ectt ect

what do we do,send in the bombers


And we bomb a few areas


Kill the innocent and maybe some guilty



wash rinse repeat


And hope you kill enough terrorists they give up the problem with that is you have to kill anyone with the idea or philosophy
other wise it breeds and your back to square one


Kill the idea, It can be done we don`t as a rule, worship the various religions of antiquity and religion as a whole is on the decline i think

Wars like these can not be won by killing more people ,This "they kill one of ours we kill 10 of them "mentality is self defeating and a strategy doomed to failure from the get go

i understand why the need to hit back with force is so appealing its instant gratification i can`t say i don`t feel that need myself ...i do

But i don`t let my base instinct take over
i know for a fact "we" are way smarter then they are

We have access to equipment and resources they could only dream about we can send in SAS,S.E.A.L ,SBS ,XXX in to take out the necessary combatants and when you have the ass holes in some shack some where or under a mountain with no funds few followers

keep an eye on them ,educate the people,improve there life`s
i often think its ironic that with the combined defense budget of every country on earth for say 5 years ,i could make a bigger dent in the terrorist mind set than shooting,bombing and killing ever could

@KD
brilliant summary of the situation

I love the last paragraph, I 100% agree, let us work towards solutions not continued hatred.

veya_victaous wrote:@KD
brilliant summary of the situation

I love the last paragraph, I 100% agree, let us work towards solutions not continued hatred.

Thanks glad you liked it

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but neither of those things are going to happen are they?

I took your post to mean:

1.  Do not allow the ISIL infection into Britain; and,

2.  Leave them alone over there, which is the same as stopping the bombing.

There's an old rule of administration, which is...the less you pick up, them less you'll have to put down.  It's the same with international conflict.  The less conflict you involve yourself in, the less you will have to get out of.

And as we've learned with imprisonment and Guantanamo Bay, the less you undertake, the less you'll have to get out of.  

That was the lesson we saw with President Bush, the Senior, who went into to Iraq and got out without burning his fingers (Desert Storm, 1990):

State Dept., Office of Historian wrote:Of all the policy successes during this era, the Department of State and President Bush are most clearly associated with the successful effort to roll back the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

He had a purpose, he went and did it, and he got out.  He didn't try to exterminate the opposition, as we are when we say we want to eliminate ISIL.  Isolate them, keep them away, and let them do what they will to each other...it's not our problem if we keep them in their cages.

What I say does not apply to non-combatants.  I mean the militants who want to be there, fighting their nonsensical civil war.

The only way to not allow ISIS into this country is to stop all Muslim refugees from that area and to stop British citizens returning if they go off to join ISIS - and that includes teenage girls. The point is that neither of those things will happen because nobody is going to say what Slovakia said - that no Muslims will be allowed in - and nobody is going to stop young girls returning in tears when they find out that joining ISIS wasn't such a great idea.

Anyway, I gather that it's too late to be discussing whether the UK should bomb Syria or not.

No money for education.
No money for the NHS.
No money for low income homes.
No money for key public services.
Money for war.


Because it will bring in money for the oil industry, and it will bring in money for the arms industry, and we all know that that will bring in money to the likes of Cameron and Co.

Plenty of money for "foreign aid" as well.

Well, there will need to be more now won't there, as there will be more refugees.  FFS, the world is mad and let's the likes of Cameron, Murdoch etc get away with it.   Murdoch part owner of Genie Oil, giving rights illegally for oil in Golan Heights, Syria, this morning saying, thanks Dave, more money in the bank, how much of it do you want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the stupid, ignorant, manipulated little muppets at the bottom of the pile say 'oh Cameron's PM, he must know what he's talking about' and scream 'bloody lefties' when the 'lefties' are tying to stop them being sold down the river.