I think it fair to say, that if there is one issue that we have heard enough about this week, it's the House of Commons vote to bomb Syria. Not that it has been uninteresting - far from it. The marathon debate on Tuesday made for riveting viewing, with many good speeches made by proponents of both sides of the argument. There is no point in my revisiting the arguments here, except to express my own view on the vote and its consequences.
For me, the crucial question is: how effective are the RAF bombing attacks going to be? After all, many other countries have been bombing ISIS in Syria for months, and it has not stopped attacks in Tunisia, Paris and, now, San Bernardino, California. Even President Assad has said that the bombing raids have had a nugatory effect on ISIS, who have continued to advance in Syria. There has been much discussion on how to deal ISIS a severe economic blow, and the RAF has joined in the attacks on oil installations with gusto and, I'm sure, with great skill. But knocking out oil production is not as simple as it sounds - especially since ISIS have scattered oil production over a wide area, with many small oil pumps that will be impossible to eliminate.
There is also the risk of alienating civilians. This is so obvious now, that I won't bang on about it too much. All I will say is that ISIS must be looking forward to an influx of new recruits, rather like the IRA experienced after Bloody Sunday in 1972.
The only benefit from the Commons' decision will be to reassure our allies that we will support them if they are attacked - and we can now feel free to ask for their co-operation if we suffer terrorist atrocities. However, as Gerald Kaufman MP said, our bombing runs will be little more than a gesture, as we, the nation that launched 1000-bomber raids against Nazi Germany in WW2, will be providing less than 15 planes. And, as some anti-bombing Tory MPs pointed out, bombing alone, unaccompanied by ground troops, will be largely ineffective.
Reading the above, you might think that I am opposed to the bombing of ISIS in Syria. It will come as a surprise to some people to learn that I am not against bombing ISIS - it is a vile organisation that must be extirpated from the face of the earth. I listened with sympathy to the anti-bombing lobby, but they failed to present a viable alternative strategy. Whether we like it or not, we are at war with ISIS, and we must take decisive action against them. The key word, for me, then, is decisive. I believe that we must assess where bombing has been effective, and that the RAF would be better employed in these areas. There is one area where bombing has been successful, and that is ground support for ground troops - especially the Kurds. With air support, the Kurds have gallantly taken the war to ISIS, recapturing much ground and many villages. I support bombing if it is to be used effectively; had I been an MP on Tuesday, I would have voted for it.
At this point, someone might well be looking at my previous posts about terrorism and terrorist strategy and saying: "Hang on - aren't you falling into the trap of doing what the terrorists want us to do?" Well, no, I'm not. ISIS are counting on indiscriminate bombing in Syria/Iraq and a rise in Islamophobia in Europe and the USA. The former would be a huge blunder and the latter, totally wrong (even though there are worrying signs of an increase here). Nevertheless, ISIS must be destroyed intellectually, strategically and physically, even if we have to make alliances with detestable states and individuals. After all, we've done it before.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is difficult to add a comment as I agree with all the points made in this blog. However I will make some expansions to some of the points made in order to elicit disagreement if not enlightenment, which may be impossible in the multi-faceted situation in Syria which is impacting on Asia and Africa. And I will start at WWII, the ramifications of this conflict are still present as manifested by the rhetoric used in the House of Commons/ the distrust between the major global powers/ the Army on the Rhine/ Angela Merkel's refugee policy.
ReplyDeleteThe strategic bombing campaign post 1942/43 was misguided - efforts should have been concentrated upon defeating the U-boat menace enabling the Second Front to be opened possibly a year earlier. Only after the introduction of long range fighter escort should strategic bombing of selected targets been started ( ironically this would have disappointed Gerald Kaufman's fellow religionists who believed terror bombing may have persuaded the Nazis to halt the Holocaust - read Karski ).
Victory in Europe resulted in a massive population movement with the loss of many lives. The killing did not stop as it took many years for the Russians to pacify Poland. The Allies removed the top Nazi tier, utilizing the rest in the civil service, and occupied Germany for many decades.
The painful lessons learned by this conflict and its aftermath have appeared to been forgotten by the Americans. Since the Americans decided to use force against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and against Saddam Hussein they should have developed a long term strategy of pacification of both countries and remained there. They should not have disbanded the Iraqi Army nor removed the top 3 tiers of the Baathist regime. These Baathist party members immediately joined Sunni militia and started insurgency operations - which of course included murderous attacks upon the majority Shias to incite civil war. America successfully countered by instigating a Sunni Tribal Awakening against these militia who where now morphing into Al-Queda ( now into Daesh ). The US then disengaged from Iraq leaving it in the capable hands of a Shia fool and a proxy of Iran - that's the way to reward your Sunni tribal allies.
Now onto Syria where a peaceful demonstration by some of its citizens against an authoritarian repressive regime resulted in murderous regime reaction. The ruling Shia sect of Assad and his adherents are now being supported by Shia Iran's republican guard and its proxy force Hezbollah, given air cover by the Russian mafia boss Putin. All these forces are trying to destroy the only viable (in western eyes) alternative to Assad's regime. Daesh meanwhile is trying to kill anyone it cannot rape.
So what should be the US and Europe's strategy - bombing Daesh and only that - leaving Iran and Russia free to destroy the FSA?
My alternative strategy is as follows; keep on degrading Daesh by bombing their money making assets but adopt a defensive strategy by supplying the FSA with modern weaponry to prevent Russian air attacks. Declare a policy of defending the FSA against ground forces of Iran (killing them if necessary). Return forces to Afghanistan and Iraq and eliminate Daesh there. then stay. Withdraw all aid from Pakistan and make Europe independent of Saudi oil. Only then take on Daesh and the Assad regime - remember, both have to go if Syrian refugees are to return to a safe country otherwise they will stay here. There are many here in Europe that would not mind another Holocaust, which brings me to Angela Merkel.
However, I think that is enough to start the ball rolling!