Syria

[LondonLax]

I'm not sure I've suggested otherwise.

 

No I was agreeing with you

[bickster]

of course there are agents there

If they are it would appear that they don't have an igloo

[colhint]

well it would melt in Syria

[bickster]

On a completely different level it is highly amusing how the Tories appear to have completely misjudged the mood of the nation

[peterms]

yes they must be under scrutiny. However the intelligence gathered should be presented in such away that they are not compromised. Now if there were say information that could only come from one source, is it right that it shared with every MP. Bearing in mind that one source is now compromised and could be used to gather other intelligence. Wouldn't it be better to presented it to the JIC who could then advise MP's. 

If the alternative is provide MP's with everything, how long would it take for sensitive information to be passed to the Russians,Chinese, US etc.

It sounds like you're putting forward a scenario where a secret agent is living under cover, and the secrets they have gathered can be revealed only at the cost of compromising their cover.  With respect, that sounds a little too comic book for my taste.

 

If we are going to sacrifice the lives of thousands of people, then we must be assured that the case for doing so is sound, and that the course of action is reasonable, proportionate, and likely to be effective.  We must also be sure that people support it.

 

None of that can be achieved by allowing security forces to present a partial and selective version of events to the people making decisions.  Let's remind ourselves, people working in security forces have the same failings as people in general.  They lie, they deceive, they make flawed judgements, they allow themselves to make poor decisions, they can be swayed by all sorts of poor influences.  On top of that, they are exposed to "intelligence" from other security forces who in all likelihood are deliberately presenting lies or partial truth in the hope of changing the actions of another country.  That's what they do.  It's part of their job.  Placing decisions of national importance in the hands of a few people acting in secret, with no accountability for their actions, no requirement to defend, explain or justify their judgements, is a very poor course of action.  Especially when they have been trained to think that lying is a legitimate tactic if it achieves the aim they are working towards.

 

And let me say again, coming so soon after the same type of people gave us utterly misleading information about Iraq and wmd, I'm very surprised that anyone could seriously think it would be a good idea in any respect.

 

Should we disbelieve everything they say?  No.  Should we accept everything they say?  No.  We should test it, require it to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, and justified.  Just like in a court of law.  We can't send people to prison for shoplifting only after rigorous process, and allow ourselves to be dragged into war on the say-so of a shadowy and unaccountable set of spooks who have recently been shown to be either incompetent or liars.  The reason we expect people to have to account for their actions and what they say is not general interest or nosiness, but because it tends to improve the integrity of their actions.  This case is no different.

[Chindie]

I'm not sure I've suggested otherwise.

No I was agreeing with you

Aha, sorry, misread the tone

[colhint]

 

yes they must be under scrutiny. However the intelligence gathered should be presented in such away that they are not compromised. Now if there were say information that could only come from one source, is it right that it shared with every MP. Bearing in mind that one source is now compromised and could be used to gather other intelligence. Wouldn't it be better to presented it to the JIC who could then advise MP's. 

If the alternative is provide MP's with everything, how long would it take for sensitive information to be passed to the Russians,Chinese, US etc.

It sounds like you're putting forward a scenario where a secret agent is living under cover, and the secrets they have gathered can be revealed only at the cost of compromising their cover.  With respect, that sounds a little too comic book for my taste.

 

If we are going to sacrifice the lives of thousands of people, then we must be assured that the case for doing so is sound, and that the course of action is reasonable, proportionate, and likely to be effective.  We must also be sure that people support it.

 

None of that can be achieved by allowing security forces to present a partial and selective version of events to the people making decisions.  Let's remind ourselves, people working in security forces have the same failings as people in general.  They lie, they deceive, they make flawed judgements, they allow themselves to make poor decisions, they can be swayed by all sorts of poor influences.  On top of that, they are exposed to "intelligence" from other security forces who in all likelihood are deliberately presenting lies or partial truth in the hope of changing the actions of another country.  That's what they do.  It's part of their job.  Placing decisions of national importance in the hands of a few people acting in secret, with no accountability for their actions, no requirement to defend, explain or justify their judgements, is a very poor course of action.  Especially when they have been trained to think that lying is a legitimate tactic if it achieves the aim they are working towards.

 

And let me say again, coming so soon after the same type of people gave us utterly misleading information about Iraq and wmd, I'm very surprised that anyone could seriously think it would be a good idea in any respect.

 

Should we disbelieve everything they say?  No.  Should we accept everything they say?  No.  We should test it, require it to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, and justified.  Just like in a court of law.  We can't send people to prison for shoplifting only after rigorous process, and allow ourselves to be dragged into war on the say-so of a shadowy and unaccountable set of spooks who have recently been shown to be either incompetent or liars.  The reason we expect people to have to account for their actions and what they say is not general interest or nosiness, but because it tends to improve the integrity of their actions.  This case is no different.

 

 

 

I must make a few points here Peter. How do you imagine we get intelligence. Do you think we just go to The Syrians or Al Queda and say I work for the British Government, could you let me know your

capabilities and intentions please.

 

As for the part in Bold. How on earth can you possibly know this? Wasn't the Phrase used by the Blair Government "we acted on bad intelligence" when it seemed more appropriate to say we acted badly on intelligence. Do you think the intelligence service provided Campbell with the wmd stikes in 45 minutes, taken from some post grad on the internet.

 

Now I am not saying that the security service make any decision on war. They should not, They provide information to the Government of the day and the JIC. The government decide what is released to MP's and if we go to war

 

What's the alternative. Pass everything to MP's. Bear in mind reading VT few people have faith in them

[peterms]

So even war criminal Rumsfeld does not accept the case for military action has been made.

 

Washington sources are now briefing in terms which echo the "slam dunk" language used about Iraq's imaginary wmds ten years ago, saying the intelligence on Syria "is no slam dunk".  In other words, the intelligence is less reliable that that about Iraq.

 

Cameron says there is no clear evidence that Assad is responsible, but we must make a judgement, and he reckons we got the bastard bang to rights.

 

Well, that's a convincing case he's made.  I am overwhelmed with the sheer intellectual power of his case, and grateful for the newfound clarity he has brought to the debate.

[colhint]

if there is not enough intelligence then don't go to war. It should be that simple. 

[OutByEaster?]

Israel has nothing to gain from the fall of Assad. True, he's not a friend, but the Syrian border was quiet since 1973, and the forces who wish to take his place will most probably change this status.

 I doubt the US will have any interest in changing that status.

[peterms]

I must make a few points here Peter. How do you imagine we get intelligence. Do you think we just go to The Syrians or Al Queda and say I work for the British Government, could you let me know your capabilities and intentions please.

No, I think we go the the CIA and Mossad as say "What do you think the capabilities and intentions of the Syrians are, then?" In general, I think we get intelligence through the usual means - buy, beg, borrow, or steal. What do you reckon?

 

As for the part in Bold. How on earth can you possibly know this? Wasn't the Phrase used by the Blair Government "we acted on bad intelligence" when it seemed more appropriate to say we acted badly on intelligence. Do you think the intelligence service provided Campbell with the wmd stikes in 45 minutes, taken from some post grad on the internet.

No. I think the security services said that Saddam had wmd, and the 45 minutes claim was the "sexing up" part which Campbell introduced. I don't think it's claimed that Campbell made the entire thing up, is it? If he had, of course, then the security people would have a clear moral imperative to expose his lies. As it is, I suppose they managed to convince themselves that the 45 minutes lie which committed the country to war was exaggeration rather than a downright lie, and so kept quiet instead of whistleblowing: an example of the cowardly, amoral and self-serving attitude which in the end makes them equally culpable in his lies. And of course a perfect illustration of why they are not to be trusted with such decisions. Let them gather intelligence and serve it up, not make decisions about our future.

 

Now I am not saying that the security service make any decision on war. They should not, They provide information to the Government of the day and the JIC. The government decide what is released to MP's and if we go to war

If they control the scope and extent of the information shown, they very heavily influence, perhaps even control, the decisions which are based on this information.

 

What's the alternative. Pass everything to MP's. Bear in mind reading VT few people have faith in them

This would at least mean that the information is exposed to scrutiny and challenge from people coming from different perspectives. You've heard of groupthink? Bureaucracies, such as armed forces and security services, are good examples. Independent thought and criticism of the official line are not encouraged. This is why some of the most successful military commanders have been those who buck the trend, encourage underlings to tell them the truth, challenge the consensus. But it goes against the culture. Tim Harford is good on this, as is "The Psychology of Military Incompetence". No, I don't want groupthinking buffoons closing down independent thought and critical scrutiny on the basis of "national security".

[OutByEaster?]

The government took us to war in Iraq on a lie, the government will take us into this one on a lie. In so far as I can see, the only thing that's changed are some of the ties. 

[peterms]

I was amused to see Cameron in the Commons trying to sound all statesmanlike, saying he was trying to reach out to Labour to form a position agreeable to both sides ir order that there could be national unity on this grave matter, while the night before his press spokesman had been briefing papers (in these words, which I have redacted before the sweary filter does so) that Miliband was "a f***ing c***".

 

Nice one, Dave.  That's really calculated to bring him on board.  Your sincerity burns bright, like a beacon.

[villaajax]

Voted against.

[chrisp65]

no appetite for a bit of an open ended dabble

 

now, that money it appears we had stashed under the sofa to fund any small wars, let's use it to build up some jobs

[markavfc40]

On a completely different level it is highly amusing how the Tories appear to have completely misjudged the mood of the nation

 

 

I wouldn't tar all the Tories with that brush in this instance but it certainly applies to Cameron. He has been shown to have completely misjudged the mood of the nation once again.

[colhint]

 

I must make a few points here Peter. How do you imagine we get intelligence. Do you think we just go to The Syrians or Al Queda and say I work for the British Government, could you let me know your capabilities and intentions please.

No, I think we go the the CIA and Mossad as say "What do you think the capabilities and intentions of the Syrians are, then?" In general, I think we get intelligence through the usual means - buy, beg, borrow, or steal. What do you reckon?

 

As for the part in Bold. How on earth can you possibly know this? Wasn't the Phrase used by the Blair Government "we acted on bad intelligence" when it seemed more appropriate to say we acted badly on intelligence. Do you think the intelligence service provided Campbell with the wmd stikes in 45 minutes, taken from some post grad on the internet.

No. I think the security services said that Saddam had wmd, and the 45 minutes claim was the "sexing up" part which Campbell introduced. I don't think it's claimed that Campbell made the entire thing up, is it? If he had, of course, then the security people would have a clear moral imperative to expose his lies. As it is, I suppose they managed to convince themselves that the 45 minutes lie which committed the country to war was exaggeration rather than a downright lie, and so kept quiet instead of whistleblowing: an example of the cowardly, amoral and self-serving attitude which in the end makes them equally culpable in his lies. And of course a perfect illustration of why they are not to be trusted with such decisions. Let them gather intelligence and serve it up, not make decisions about our future.

 

Now I am not saying that the security service make any decision on war. They should not, They provide information to the Government of the day and the JIC. The government decide what is released to MP's and if we go to war

If they control the scope and extent of the information shown, they very heavily influence, perhaps even control, the decisions which are based on this information.

 

What's the alternative. Pass everything to MP's. Bear in mind reading VT few people have faith in them

This would at least mean that the information is exposed to scrutiny and challenge from people coming from different perspectives. You've heard of groupthink? Bureaucracies, such as armed forces and security services, are good examples. Independent thought and criticism of the official line are not encouraged. This is why some of the most successful military commanders have been those who buck the trend, encourage underlings to tell them the truth, challenge the consensus. But it goes against the culture. Tim Harford is good on this, as is "The Psychology of Military Incompetence". No, I don't want groupthinking buffoons closing down independent thought and critical scrutiny on the basis of "national security".

 

 

Well I reckon we do have agents in the field. I'm sure we have agents all over the world. Do you believe that when 4 guys from Leeds I think it was had their house raided to find bomb making equipment that was just info passed on? I'm sure we do pass on info between nations though. 

 

As for the Campbell thing I think it was almost verbatim from the internet, so just wondering how you think the intelligence service was involved.

 

I'm just wondering why you think they control the scope or influence the decision. I think it is more likely they pass on whatever they have, then the politicians make the decision. 

 

I am also wondering what you think they have to gain, by suggesting we go to war or not. You also mention groupthink, independent thought of the official line not encouraged. Could you just as easily say following the party line. Recently  we have had a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The politicians have been allowed to spin this along party lines whichever way they want. The Secret services cant really reply. 

 

No If I am not making my stance clear on this, I'll try to qualify it. 

 

The intelligence service is to provide info only, have no say on the decision. That is up to MP's. 

[peterms]

What's the alternative. Pass everything to MP's. Bear in mind reading VT few people have faith in them

Just on that point, I think the debate today has done MPs and the parliamentary system some favours.  Speaking as someone who is, shall I say, not dewy-eyed about the probity, integrity, acumen, moral standing and general worth of MPs, I thought there were some creditable performances.

 

I only caught parts of the speeches, but I was impressed with the clarity and independence of thought of some of what I heard, including Carswell, Davis and Galloway.  In fact the 10 minutes or so where Davis spoke and was immediately followed by Galloway is well worth seeing.  I hope someone puts it up.

 

If they behaved like that more of the time, people would have a lot more respect for them.

 

Of course someone had to spoil it.  Step up Michael "****" Gove:

 

AndrewSparrow @AndrewSparrow

RT @tnewtondunn: Stunning scenes. Gove overheard shouting at Tory rebels outside Commons chamber: “You’re a disgrace, you’re a disgrace”.

[peterms]

Also worth noting the conclusion of the vote, and the comments afterwards (Miliband's point of order asking Cameron to confirm that the UK will not use military force against Syria before a vote in HoC authorising this; and Cameron's acceptance of this) means that there is now agreement that war cannot be declared by the PM/Cabinet alone.  David Davis made a comment to this effect in his (very good) speech, saying that the power to declare war comes from below, from the "demos".

 

This is a significant point in the evolution of the obscure British Constitution.  Though I'm still to be convinced that Dim Dave fully appreciated that, as he slowly turned on the lathe of his own evisceration.

[StefanAVFC]

if there is not enough intelligence then don't go to war. It should be that simple. 

 

Yet you were okay with MP's voting on war based on a summary of the situation. Which is it?