You both seem to have decided that air strikes are not the answer. So what is?
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
You both seem to have decided that air strikes are not the answer. So what is?
Not a phrase I'd use. Did you have a point?
You seem to be saying that you can't criticise the use of airstrikes if you don't have an alternative.
I'm not sure I have one, nor do I need one, I simply vehemently disagree with the current policy.
To me, it seems like a Western led initiative is going to do more harm than good no matter what it does. So you'd have to involve the Arab States. For the time being that also means siding with Assad. The exact nature of that involvement depends on what they're actually doing. If the Saudi's are actively funding IS then a good first step would be to get them to stop doing that, as well as tracking down and stopping whoever is buying IS oil, and tracking down private contributors in Western states (I think Russia identified 50 states or something like that). Turkey's involvement is difficult, too, Ottoman imperialism still has deep scars, but if you could convince Turkey not to actively hinder the Kurdish resistance that would be helpful. Disrupting their communications would be a good step, too.
I think the end goal has to be the establishment of authority in the region, boots on the ground or airstrikes just further create a vacuum to be filled. In my mind the solution will inevitably resemble the creation of several, smaller, states with functioning armies which can suppress that ideology. It also means the continued support for the Afghani and Iraqi governments, but thats a problem we've already caused.
It may have reduced them. Yes there may have more attacks if they hadn't been bombed. We will never know if there would have been more or less attacks without the air raids. The fact is that it hasn't stopped the attacks after going on for 2 years so I can't see it stopping them now.
You can criticise what you want, unlike those under the rule of IS.
Air strikes obviously weaken the enemy so it naturally follows that if we didn't launch them they would grow stronger which can't be allowed to happen. IMO it is barmy to suggest stopping the airstrikes and equally barmy that the UK can have drones over Syria and even be lead the operation to take out Mohammed Emwazi yet not be allowed to launch air strikes.
It's a pet peeve of mine when people are easy to criticise yet offer no alternative.
Well the alternative is to not do airstrikes, so you don't need to be peeved.
Simple(ton). If you've managed to work all that out don't you think the likes of Cameron, Obama etc have also thought along the same lines? Some things are long term objectives and I am sure removing Assad and establishing a decent authority in the region is one of them but the need to remove IS is also on the agenda and needs immediate action rather than Corbyns way of writing them a stiff letter.
I think it's going to take a ground war with Western Troupes on the ground to damage their network enough to stop them training terrorists. I also think we need a policy where we react much faster when groups like this raise their heads again.
Well, quite, I was also going to add that I'm sure they're already doing a lot of that.
If they are then it brings us closer to a working solution than the airstrikes which, whilst popular, are counter productive for all the reasons we've discussed above. As for Cameron, I don't think he has any sort of policy on the matter. He goes along with whatever is popular at the time because Britain's involvement is relatively inconsequential.
The air strikes have been supporting Kurdish ground forces, who have needed their cover in order to reclaim land previously lost. This is why pretty much every military analyst of the situation says that air strikes alone won't finish the job, further ground forces are necessary because the Kurds can't do everything, and may not really want to push beyond their own territory. But to say that air strikes have achieved nothing is patently false.
You may have accepted the air strikes are not weakening the enemy, I haven't. And your second point is bollox. In fact your first was too. FFS, inconsequential? Who identified Amwazi's whereabouts for the US to kill him? Any rightminded person would realise the huge part we play in the situation.
I agree and air strikes are usually part of that longer term plan.
Not sure we can react much quicker than the French police and security forces did. The Mumbai attack went on for 4 days because they had to fly in specialist teams and that won't happen again so we are learning. Security forces around the world are watching likely attackers but when you think how many directions they have to be looking at once you realise how difficult is to stop every attack. The IRA used to say they only had to be lucky once for a bomb to get through whereas we had to be lucky everytime to stop them.
And killing Emwazi has stopped ISIS? Or impacted their operational capacity in anyway? Most media reports would have you believe Emwazi was a nobody in IS and certainly not a high value target -other for the fact he was well known- so I'd argue its conclusive proof airstrikes are being used as they're popular not because they're exclusively aimed at stopping IS as an organisation.
And yes, what the UK does in inconsequential, yeah we can kill a few people and we can certainly help. But we're simply not a strong enough geopolitical power to have any real influence on the solution. We'll just go along with what the US decides.
I agree with air strikes for a short period before a ground invasion and then as support during the ground invasion just not as the only coarse of action.
I'm not on about react to the attacks, I thought that the French police did a great job and are still doing so rooting out the group that organised all of this. I mean that we sat back and let ISIS become powerful we should have stopped them when they were just in their infancy. Everybody could see what they were going to become.
I also think we need to be harder on the people who are going to Syria to fight for ISIS and then returning to the west. They should be charged with treason and locked up and have the key thrown away. I can't see how a British, French, Belgium or any other western national joining ISIS is not treason.
We have the fifth highest level of defence spending in the world, of course we have influence.
Better hand in our G7 membership card.
It doesn't matter (for a start our defence spending is ~10% that of the US). The UK is not going to set the debate here, nor will we act unilaterally in the face of international opposition. We will support the US's policy aims like we always do.
I suppose it's for those in charge to know how long a period is sensible. I do agree that IS were not acted upon sooner. I also agree that those having travelled to Syria need to be dealt with and those who are tempted to go are stopped. We are told that our security forces have stopped 7 attacks on the UK recently so I have faith in them watching that need to be watched. This is why it is galling when some put obstacles in the security forces way and make their job ultimately harder.
Not being able to set the agenda is orders of magnitude away from having "no real influence". Parliament voting down the possibility of air strikes in Syria 2 years ago stopped the US getting involved at that point. We're a major military and diplomatic power, we have influence.
Pardon me whilst i play catch-up with some of the discussion here.
Re: Ken Livingstone
He was asked to apologise for his remarks and responded with statements like these:
Maybe they came across as sincere when heard live, but i rather think that he's taking the piss, and flouting not only Corbyn's authority but doing harm to his stance on mental health. If he does not ultimately sack Livingstone the impression is pretty bad all round.
Does Ken still work at LBC radio btw? This could easily affect his continued employment there.
Because choosing to do nothing, or so little that it amounts to the same, is still a decision which has consequences. Indeed it could be argued that thousands have died because the West felt it had no choice but to stand off or outsource its intervention.
There is however, good reason to be concerned about the post-conflict planning on Camerons part (Libya showed that we hadn't learnt the lessons from Iraq), in which case Corbyn should be putting forward his own practical suggestions. If he wishes to be Prime Minister then his case is hardly going to be damaged by playing the role.
You've accused the British public of being bloodthirsty, however if that were indeed the case the vote in 2013 would surely have turned out very differently. Cameron was unable to convince his own party let alone the wider population, and i suspect that a significant minority of backbenchers remain sceptical of his competence on foreign policy matters.
Re: Ken Livingstone
He was asked to apologise for his remarks and responded with statements like these:
Maybe they came across as sincere when heard live, but i rather think that he's taking the piss, and flouting not only Corbyn's authority but doing harm to his stance on mental health. If he does not ultimately sack Livingstone the impression is pretty bad all round.
Does Ken still work at LBC radio btw? This could easily affect his continued employment there.
Because choosing to do nothing, or so little that it amounts to the same, is still a decision which has consequences. Indeed it could be argued that thousands have died because the West felt it had no choice but to stand off or outsource its intervention.
There is however, good reason to be concerned about the post-conflict planning on Camerons part (Libya showed that we hadn't learnt the lessons from Iraq), in which case Corbyn should be putting forward his own practical suggestions. If he wishes to be Prime Minister then his case is hardly going to be damaged by playing the role.
You've accused the British public of being bloodthirsty, however if that were indeed the case the vote in 2013 would surely have turned out very differently. Cameron was unable to convince his own party let alone the wider population, and i suspect that a significant minority of backbenchers remain sceptical of his competence on foreign policy matters.
Last edited:
That's quite an anglo-centric viewpoint. It was a lack of appetite in the west in general, not just the UK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from Cameron, Hollande and Obama. No world leader supported air-strikes and one of them was voted down by his own parliament.
There was a poll today suggesting just over 50% of people supported air-strikes and Cameron has suggested he won't take it to a vote because he's not sure he'd win. Given the timing, I'd be surprised if that number didn't decrease the further we get from events.
Thats the other reason why I would argue the Uk is inconsequential, because we have no real appetite to get involved.
Good point.
However my principle here is that if you have 2 potential courses of action and you don't know how either will turn out, go with the one that doesn't involve bombing. I can't place much trust in the government to know best on this occasion because we've been misled in the past, and there hasn't been a particularly compelling case this time around.
Another good point, maybe there's a difference between intervening when it's just the Syrians dying and intervening when things start to get a bit closer to home. Which is a fair enough distinction for the public to make but I'd still argue that the debate should be wider than just "do we intervene militarily or not?". Corbyn raised some good points about dealing with the funding and arms sources - I think this should be the first endeavour. The government needs to present a solid case for how the conflict will be resolved and what happens next before I will ever support introducing more bombs and bullets to the region.
Something I'd like your opinion (as someone who's opinion I respect) on is the wider point of whether intervening in civil wars is ever a good strategy in the long-term.
It's something I want to read and learn more about but I am aware that the number of civil wars, and the length that they last, both increased significantly during the cold war and some statistics I've seen suggest that an increase in outside intervention is the cause for this.
Too late Ken
It's not anglo-centric, it's what happened. Obama was ready to start and was waiting on Cameron to get the greenlight. When that wasn't acquired, Obama abandoned the idea. It was only Da'esh becoming established that brought them back in.
There's been a number of polls relating to military action today. One (which I posted in another thread, can't remember which) even showed people wanted boots on the ground, not just air strikes. The poll you mention citing 58% support for airstrikes had just 22% against them. Another more nuanced one had only 15% in favour of unilateral airstrikes, but massive support for internationally agreed action including military, and only about 15% wanting to rule out military. So I'm not quite sure your point on the appetite is based on the evidence.
I'm sure I saw a list somewhere that included Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Australia...
No, Obama was waiting on the green light from coalition partners (to borrow an Iraq warism) which he didn't receive. Yes the UK was one of those, but it was not the only one. Not only that, but he faced substantial domestic opposition not just from the public but within his own party. To act like the UK was solely responsible for what happened is disingenuous. In fact, after the UK voted against the measures on 30 Aug on the 31 Obama announced the proposals would go to congress. And a bi-partisan joint committee bill was filed on the 6th September.
It was, in fact, Russian pressure on the Assad regime to destroy chemical weapons that stopped air-strikes at that time and, in September 2014 in spite of the UK's vote a year earlier the US engaged in airstrikes on Syria supported by geopolitical allies.
My point with the polls, is that we're at the height of anger and rage and yet just over half, from the ones I've seen (fair enough if you've seen others that suggest a stronger backing), support air-strikes. It's a passionate response and in 3-4 months time with, hopefully, the events of the past week a distant memory support is not going to be as strong.
In googling this I came across this quote from Miliband:
Labour leader Ed Miliband said on Friday that the House of Commons had spoken "for the people of Britain".
"People are deeply concerned about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but they want us to learn the lessons of Iraq," he said.
"They don't want a rush to war. They want things done in the right way, working with the international community."
He said Britain "doesn't need reckless and impulsive leadership, it needs calm and measured leadership".
I think it, still, sums up the attitude towards Syria.
My use of 'world leader' was incorrect. But I think almost all of those joined later in 2014 when the strikes were against IS rather than in 2013 against Assad.
Last edited:
Exactly, after we'd voted against it he stepped back from his previous "we're definitely going in" stance and said it would be put to Congress, precisely because he could no longer say there was broad international agreement on it. Given the "surprise u-turn", to use the language of the Guardian's article on it here - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/31/syrian-air-strikes-obama-congress - happened the day after our vote, it's not exactly a coincidence. After the rowing back, Putin took advantage to look the statesman. Maybe that would still have happened if we'd voted to join airstrikes, I don't know, but it was a big event at the time and I'm fairly certain it affected Obama's decision making.
From the very article you posted:
Yes, the commons vote was a part of the 'waning international support' but to act like its solely responsible for a shift in US policy is simply wrong.
And the article also quotes Obama directly citing the Commons vote. I'm perfectly willing to say we weren't the sole actors responsible for the change, as I said earlier we don't set the agenda, my whole point is that we still have influence. It's the "we're meaningless" attitude that irks me.
It's just speculation, though, Obama's reference to the commons vote is purely in response to concerns he might lose. There's more than enough domestic pressures to suggest that, rather than a tenuous link with the commons vote to be the reason.
Either way I'm not sure its a massively strong endorsement for your point. If all of the world is united against the US, including half the US itself, can just about sort of make Obama change his mind then what chance do we have on our own? You only have to look at the language used at the time to show how uncomfortable going against the US made people it was phrased in terms of damaging the 'special relationship'.
The strongest argument for your point is our security council veto, I guess, but we haven't used that for nearly 30 years and have only done so unilaterally 5 times, all in regards to Rhodesia.
I don't think we're going to agree on this to be honest, and we're getting a bit off topic from his Corbiness. Which Corbyn's probably pretty happy about tbf
Genuine risk of coming third in Scotland if the election campaign doesn't go well.
Speaking of Jez, here's what the Scottish parliament would look on the basis of a poll taken over the last few days:
If that resembles the actual result next year...good grief.
If that resembles the actual result next year...good grief.
The escalation in the level of bombing certainly seems knee jerk, it takes time to filter intelligence and aquire targets, not sure they are taking their time to be sure anymore
They have a set group of targets that allow them to plan in advance. There are known targets that have been avoided to this point because of civilian impact like oil facilities, etc. It's not as if they just decided to drop bombs without using specific targets that had been designated after whatever review process. They're also undoubtedly using guided munitions, unlike certain others involved in the bombing of Syria (Assad, Russia).
Just awful.
France have been allied with American operations since day one in Syria. Do you not think they have been filtering intelligence and acquiring targets since then?
I don't buy that they are targeting Isis with the same criteria they followed before events on Friday
Hollande has declared war on ISIS and is ramping up their bombing campaign. Before the US and France were taking a back seat trying to do as little as possible hoping that the Kurds would overcome ISIS. Things changed for France on Friday.
Last edited: