The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[snowychap]

So, we should now be supporting Assad (strengthening him and his regime would suggest that, no)?

[Ads]

Its worth pointing out that there hasn't been a Commons vote on hitting IS or JaN in Syria, as the vote last year was targetting Assad.

[tonyh29]

the Tory clearing in the woods who tried to bring up the deficit during the discussion  ... hope he gets a night in the stocks for that one

[bickster]

Tory clearing in the woods

Selectively quoted for posterity

[bickster]

Does anyone know where I can get a transcript of Cameron's UN speech btw, the is one line in there that should haunt him for the rest of his days in office. Something along the lines of… "Good government is one that governs for everybody, not just your mates", nearly crashed the car when he said it at 4 in the morning.

[tonyh29]

Does anyone know where I can get a transcript of Cameron's UN speech btw, the is one line in there that should haunt him for the rest of his days in office. Something along the lines of… "Good government is one that governs for everybody, not just your mates", nearly crashed the car when he said it at 4 in the morning.

it's on youtube but don't know about a transcript

[bickster]

Yeah I really didn't want to have to listen to the whole thing, it might drive me to go out and trash a restaurant or something

[tonyh29]

 

Does anyone know where I can get a transcript of Cameron's UN speech btw, the is one line in there that should haunt him for the rest of his days in office. Something along the lines of… "Good government is one that governs for everybody, not just your mates", nearly crashed the car when he said it at 4 in the morning.

it's on youtube but don't know about a transcript

 

 

around 8 mins he says " governments that only govern for some of their people , cause deep resentment "

[tonyh29]

Yeah I really didn't want to have to listen to the whole thing, it might drive me to go out and trash a restaurant or something

 

tbf it's not a bad speech  ... it's sorta what he does well

 

empty seats m'lord though

[Ads]

I haven't heard the speech, but assume that is a rather obvious finger wag at Iraq and a bit of "get the Sunni's into government positions and bung them some cash" call to Abadi. You might find, in fact you would find, they'd turn on IS (again). We need to squeeze IS from all sides.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Ads

[blandy]

To pontificate as Miliband is doing that Iraq and Syria are two discrete problems is a nonsense exposed by even a cursory assessment of how to defeat IS..

Well, not really.  They are (at least) 2 problems, with some area of overlap, in the case of IS. There were already, surely, 2+ individual problems (albeit with some common theemes) before IS came along.

To me, it's more like a multitude of problems, of which IS is the one seemingly most abhorrent to Western interests and sensibilities.

 

I struggle a bit, too, with phrases like "to defeat IS". I may be pessimisitic, but I don't think "terrorism" or "Al-Quaida" or "IS" are really tangible things or entities to be defeated by just doing battle.

 

The whole thing is an almighty mother falcon mess, not a single problem.

 

The politicians and their advisors are not really up to the task of sorting from afar. The likes of millipede or cameron playing politics for local interests is hardly a new thing.

[bickster]

I haven't heard the speech, but assume that is a rather obvious finger wag at Iraq and a bit of "get the Sunni's into government positions and bung them some cash" call to Abadi. You might find, in fact you would find, they'd turn on IS (again). We need to squeeze IS from all sides.

Yes it was but it can easily be used against him

[Awol]

To pontificate as Miliband is doing that Iraq and Syria are two discrete problems is a nonsense exposed by even a cursory assessment of how to defeat IS..

Well, not really. They are (at least) 2 problems, with some area of overlap, in the case of IS. There were already, surely, 2+ individual problems (albeit with some common theemes) before IS came along.

To me, it's more like a multitude of problems, of which IS is the one seemingly most abhorrent to Western interests and sensibilities.

I struggle a bit, too, with phrases like "to defeat IS". I may be pessimisitic, but I don't think "terrorism" or "Al-Quaida" or "IS" are really tangible things or entities to be defeated by just doing battle.

The whole thing is an almighty mother falcon mess, not a single problem.

The politicians and their advisors are not really up to the task of sorting from afar. The likes of millipede or cameron playing politics for local interests is hardly a new thing.

Two years ago Iraq and Syria were two discrete problems, albeit with a steady stream of fighters flowing between Syria and Anbar. Once Assad's army lost control of the borders that distinction started to disappear, before vanishing completely when IS mobbed up into battalion+ sized units and operating as a conventional force - the breaking the borders campaign.

Treating the two as separate issues now is like baking a cake then trying to remove the flour!

On defeating IS I should clarify that as removing their ability to operate as a conventional force and decisively engage/defeat military formations. That is achieved by destroying everything they possess bigger than land cruiser through the intensive application of air power. Do that and you destroy their combat power and logistics, isolate and fix them in urban areas. From there they can be isolated and slowly ground down through attrition. Once the tribes see they are backing a loser their support will start to fragment because Arabs are nothing if not pragmatic.

Where we definitely agree is the lack of quality statesman to manage this, however as you seem to acknowledge that Miliband is playing games here do you agree he should be pulled up on it? I'd imagine our allies are terrified at the prospect of him becoming PM.

[TrentVilla]

AWOL / Ads I'm curious as to your thoughts on our role when the nod is given.

 

I find it hard to imagine that the US actually require our assistance as I'm sure they have more than enough capability without us, so is this more about standing shoulder to shoulder and supporting them in a different way?

In terms of what we actually do, give our action will be limited to Iraq I'm assuming that will allow the US greater focus on IS in Syria leaving us to mop up retreating forces moving back across what was once the border into Iraq? Or alternatively us trying to drive them out of Iraq into the sights of the US?

[blandy]

Two years ago Iraq and Syria were two discrete problems, albeit with a steady stream of fighters flowing between Syria and Anbar. Once Assad's army lost control of the borders that distinction started to disappear, before vanishing completely when IS mobbed up into battalion+ sized units and operating as a conventional force - the breaking the borders campaign.

Treating the two as separate issues now is like baking a cake then trying to remove the flour!

On defeating IS I should clarify that as removing their ability to operate as a conventional force and decisively engage/defeat military formations. That is achieved by destroying everything they possess bigger than land cruiser through the intensive application of air power. Do that and you destroy their combat power and logistics, isolate and fix them in urban areas. From there they can be isolated and slowly ground down through attrition. Once the tribes see they are backing a loser their support will start to fragment because Arabs are nothing if not pragmatic.

Where we definitely agree is the lack of quality statesman to manage this, however as you seem to acknowledge that Miliband is playing games here do you agree he should be pulled up on it? I'd imagine our allies are terrified at the prospect of him becoming PM.

I just think we read it differently Jon. I'm trying, from the information I have, to look at it not just as being about IS, but as about the civil war and the (as it's portrayed over here by people over there) distinct, sometimes blurred, sometimes ambiguous, groups and factions and sects and all the rest.

I'm looking at it as Syria and Iraq are both a mess, but different sets of messes.

As for Miliband, I think he's wary of going where Blair went, or letting Cameron and some of the more up and at 'em, think later, tories go there.

I think the opposition has a duty to oppose. And yes, national interest can and should over-ride that at times, but I'm not sure that it's totally unambiguously clear that steps to help Assad, or help one set of loons (even if that's not the stated intention of the action) over another is definitely in the UK national interest.

There's undoubtedly party considerations on all sides on the HoC, but I don't think he's any worse than any other leader in this.

[blandy]

AWOL / Ads I'm curious as to your thoughts on our role when the nod is given.

 

I find it hard to imagine that the US actually require our assistance as I'm sure they have more than enough capability without us, so is this more about standing shoulder to shoulder and supporting them in a different way?

In terms of what we actually do, give our action will be limited to Iraq I'm assuming that will allow the US greater focus on IS in Syria leaving us to mop up retreating forces moving back across what was once the border into Iraq? Or alternatively us trying to drive them out of Iraq into the sights of the US?

I think we have some capability that even the US lacks wrt some weapons  - Brimstone etc., but UK involvement is basically symbolic as is the case with the Danes and Nederlands etc.

 

Like I said earlier, there's I suspect, an element of "keeping in" with the US for other reasons than just this action.

Additionally, to be fair, you can't moan about the US being self appointed world policeman, then refrain from doing anything yourself and just asking them to do some world policing.

[Ads]

AWOL / Ads I'm curious as to your thoughts on our role when the nod is given.

 

I find it hard to imagine that the US actually require our assistance as I'm sure they have more than enough capability without us, so is this more about standing shoulder to shoulder and supporting them in a different way?

In terms of what we actually do, give our action will be limited to Iraq I'm assuming that will allow the US greater focus on IS in Syria leaving us to mop up retreating forces moving back across what was once the border into Iraq? Or alternatively us trying to drive them out of Iraq into the sights of the US?

 

Note that the US in their strikes into Syria thus far they've used the F-22 for the first time [testing Syria's Russian made air defence maybe? There is no other real explanation for why you would pick that airframe for the mission); in context that is a $60billion programme that has taken 41 years from chalkboard to dropping ordinance There is no doubt that the US have the capability to carry out this mission on their own.

 

Our involvement though, to a lesser degree than the locals, helps the politics of the decision from Obama's prospective. France and Australia offer the same, who at least provide something tangible in military terms, rather than merely token. The Aussies are actually sending a pretty reasonably sized force and it will be interesting to see what we end up deploying if they vote Yes in a few moments.

 

In terms of whether we're required for any strategic value… well, we have been doing these sorts of missions for some considerable time (often better too in the early days if you look at the Balkans) so our FAC will be up there with what the US are doing, we have bases local, we have the capability, but this will all be under and run by CENTCOM and those boys from Virginia. It is actually in that last comment re the CIA that long term strategically, our SF (who will be on the deck calling in the shots [and I suspect have been for some time]) may offer an ability to fill in that vacuum in intelligence we have lacked since the hasty exit the US made out of Iraq in 2011.

 

In respect of a few previous comments, I heard one commentator suggest we hold our nose regarding Assad. The best example possible comes with the 17th Division and the mass IS attack that finished them off in Raqqa (leading to a lot of choppy choppy). Air strikes a few weeks previously would have prevented such an attack, because it wouldn't have been possible for an IS to build up the necessary men and material and the manoeuvre to execute the operation. A consequence of that is you either create a stalemate or a vaccum, and one group or another will fill it.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Government wins Iraq vote by 524 to 43 - a majority of 481

 

Let the shit hit the fan!

[Ads]

Time for the Crabs to do their bit for their piece of the pie ahead of SDR 2015.

 

Happy flying boys.

[chrisp65]

quietly confident that a bit of bombing will do the trick once and for all

 

home for Christmas boys, home for Christmas