Boris Johnson: allies should join Assad and Russia against Isis

London’s mayor says doubts about there being 70,000 ‘moderate’ fighters means allies cannot be picky if they want to defeat jihadis

Britain and its allies should accept that Bashar al-Assad’s forces are best placed to lead a ground assault against Islamic State in Syria because David Cameron’s claims about 70,000 moderate opposition forces are “exaggerated,” Boris Johnson has said.

In remarks that may be seized on by Labour opponents of the airstrikes in Syria, Johnson says that “Assad and his army” may be the allies’ best chance of removing Isis because the 70,000 figure includes groups that are ideologically little different from al-Qaida.

More at:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/07/boris-johnson-allies-should-join-assad-and-russia-against-isis

So in one speech he shows Cameron to be a liar, but says we should help Assad, who has caused more that 98% of the civilian deaths, has wiped out whole cities, and is the regime that is cause the most refugees.  I am in no way underplaying what Daesh have and are doing, but you couldn't make up how stupid that is.

If nothing else, Johnson has put his finger on the fact Cameron was lying, has no plan and no exit strategy and is all ready talking about this going on for years and years.

He has a point though. Cameron and others want to go for Assad, which would mean another power vacuum - more room for ISIS and other rebels to fight it out and try to get power. I don't believe these rebels are sweet natured people who just want more "freedom" or fairness in Syria. They are attacking Government forces, so naturally the Government will strike back.

The rebels are awful, Assad is more awful, and Assad has killed more civilians, horribly, than anyone else by a mile.

sassy wrote:The rebels are awful, Assad is more awful, and Assad has killed more civilians, horribly, than anyone else by a mile.

It's not a competition to see who killed more people though, it's about long-term stability, and I think that going for Assad will make the place even more unstable. If all these "allies" can't agree on who should be stopped, it will just dilute any effort anyway, and nothing will be achieved. I've said several times that Assad should stay at least for the moment because I think that's the best chance for stability in the long term. If the Russians are going for the rebels, and the US are propping them up, the efforts of both will be cancelled out by each other.

There cannot possible be any long term stability under Assad.  You can't have stability under a leader who has decimated his whole country and the population in it.

sassy wrote:There cannot possible be any long term stability under Assad.  You can't have stability under a leader who has decimated his whole country and the population in it.

There was relative stability for a long time until the rebels decided they wanted a piece of the action.

Let's just say Assad goes, what would happen then, and how would stability be achieved?

What?  Before the protests started, Assad ruled by fear, terrorising and torturing anyone who disagreed with him including human rights campaigners, using the secret police to do it..  When the protests started, which in the beginning were civil protests, his reply was violent and extreme, with the arrest and torture of 15 students for the terrible crime of writing anti government graffiti.

After that, out came the tanks and the bombs and chemical weapons against his own people.

sassy wrote:What?  Before the protests started, Assad ruled by fear, terrorising and torturing anyone who disagreed with him including human rights campaigners, using the secret police to do it..  When the protests started, which in the beginning were civil protests, his reply was violent and extreme, with the arrest and torture of 15 students for the terrible crime of writing anti government graffiti.

After that, out came the tanks and the bombs and chemical weapons against his own people.

It was stable though, like Iraq was relative stable before the invasion.

You haven't answered the question. If Assad goes, and you have all these different groups vying for power, how can there be stability of any kind?

Oh right, so if you terrorise and torture a population into submission that's ok?   Sheeeeeeeesh!

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:What?  Before the protests started, Assad ruled by fear, terrorising and torturing anyone who disagreed with him including human rights campaigners, using the secret police to do it..  When the protests started, which in the beginning were civil protests, his reply was violent and extreme, with the arrest and torture of 15 students for the terrible crime of writing anti government graffiti.

After that, out came the tanks and the bombs and chemical weapons against his own people.

It was stable though, like Iraq was relative stable before the invasion.

You haven't answered the question. If Assad goes, and you have all these different groups vying for power, how can there be stability of any kind?

A peace keeping force would have to be put into place whilst the country went through its transition of returning millions of refugees. No election would be possible until this was completed . A Coalition Government would have to be put into place. Security points would have to be placed in and out of all towns and cities.

sassy wrote:Oh right, so if you terrorise and torture a population into submission that's ok?   Sheeeeeeeesh!

Does that mean you agreed with the invasion of Iraq then? After all, Mr Blair said it would free the population from a tyrant.

Do you really think that all will be sweetness and light if Assad went?

So who gets to decide that anyone should intervene in Syria? I think countries have to be careful about intervening where there is no particular threat to themselves. We did it in Kosovo of course, and we did it in Iraq, although it was claimed that there was a threat to ourselves. When that didn't work, the argument changed into a "humanitarian" one - ie, to rid Iraq of a brutal dictator. That worked out well didn't it?

Nobody has to necessarily support Assad as such, but they don't need to attack him either. They don't have to attack the rebels either, but they also don't need to prop them up and support them.

When it comes to ISIS, it could be said that they are more of a threat, but are they really a threat to the UK or to any other country? People have left the UK to join them, but have they actually brought the fight here, or is there any indication that they intend to?

Agree with Raggs
one of the most sensible posts from the UK I have seen.