War (again)

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

With today's vote in Parliament the Prime Minister has secured the large majority he was seeking to authorise miltary action against the 'Islamic State' organisation in Iraq. The UK public seem (broadly speaking) to be of the same view and with the Iraqi Government also requesting our assistance the last constraints against war are removed and the RAF will almost certainly find itself in action against 'IS' extremists within a matter of days, if not hours. But with just 6 Tornado GR4 strike aircraft in theatre (and a 'Tomahawk' armed Royal Navy Submarine perhaps) it seems to me our contribution will be largely symbolic in nature - the limited form of our commitment reflecting perhaps the limited enthusiasm we now have for this cause after decades of bloodshed.

 

However if we accept that IS is a real threat to regional security in the Middle East (such as it is) and that the Iraqi state we have created post Saddam is worth a damn, then I suppose a semi reasonable case for military action can be made here. I'd feel more secure in thinking that if Iraq itself was putting up more of a fight in its own defence - I can only hope that one day we do not find ourselves drawing ugly comparisons between the Iraq we are going to war for and the doomed US backed South Vietnam regime, or even Soviet era Afghanistan perhaps. Time will tell.

 

How strange it is that a organisation I'm sure most of us had never even heard of a few months ago is now adjudged to be so dangerous that we must go to war in a effort just to contain it. I must also add that it seems to me that 'IS' far from fearing the prospect actually desire war with the West. Might that not be a pretty good reason why we should refrain from action? Nevertheless rightly or wrongly we are about to 'let slip the dogs of war' again and if you asked me when those hound's constant barking would cease all I could say is that I'm confident it will all be over by Christmas ... just don't ask me which Christmas.

[Batman]

The limited contribution is down to limited resources, basically

 

The amount of nations participating is growing very much it seems.

 

iS is very much wishing they were not getting bombed to the Stone Age. They are trying to offer more and more hostages as gestures so not to get pounded.

 

However, just limiting this to Iraq is just plain fact if we are serious about this (it's the UK limited to Iraq) these people are in North Africa and other places near NATO partners

Edited 26 September, 2014 by Batman

[farawaysaint]

The limited contribution is down to limited resources, basically

 

The amount of nations participating is growing very much it seems.

 

iS is very much wishing they were not getting bombed to the Stone Age. They are trying to offer more and more hostages as gestures so not to get pounded.

 

However, just limiting this to Iraq is just plain fact if we are serious about this (it's the UK limited to Iraq) these people are in North Africa and other places near NATO partners

 

I've seen offers of exchange but hardly begging? I always get the feeling that bombing radicals just delays the inevitable, you destroy infrastructure but just create a new generation of fundamentalists bearing grudges. Guerilla warfare has proved almost impossible to stamp out historically although I do get that you are perhaps a bit more informed on the subject than me.

[SO16_Saint]

We're not going to have boots on the ground as far as I can see?

[Gemmel]

With today's vote in Parliament the Prime Minister has secured the large majority he was seeking to authorise miltary action against the 'Islamic State' organisation in Iraq. The UK public seem (broadly speaking) to be of the same view and with the Iraqi Government also requesting our assistance the last constraints against war are removed and the RAF will almost certainly find itself in action against 'IS' extremists within a matter of days, if not hours. But with just 6 Tornado GR4 strike aircraft in theatre (and a 'Tomahawk' armed Royal Navy Submarine perhaps) it seems to me our contribution will be largely symbolic in nature - the limited form of our commitment reflecting perhaps the limited enthusiasm we now have for this cause after decades of bloodshed.

 

However if we accept that IS is a real threat to regional security in the Middle East (such as it is) and that the Iraqi state we have created post Saddam is worth a damn, then I suppose a semi reasonable case for military action can be made here. I'd feel more secure in thinking that if Iraq itself was putting up more of a fight in its own defence - I can only hope that one day we do not find ourselves drawing ugly comparisons between the Iraq we are going to war for and the doomed US backed South Vietnam regime, or even Soviet era Afghanistan perhaps. Time will tell.

 

How strange it is that a organisation I'm sure most of us had never even heard of a few months ago is now adjudged to be so dangerous that we must go to war in a effort just to contain it. I must also add that it seems to me that 'IS' far from fearing the prospect actually desire war with the West. Might that not be a pretty good reason why we should refrain from action? Nevertheless rightly or wrongly we are about to 'let slip the dogs of war' again and if you asked me when those hound's constant barking would cease all I could say is that I'm confident it will all be over by Christmas ... just don't ask me which Christmas.

 

It is the Apaches that will do the damage. Read a fantastic book on the selection process and how they are protected when they come home.

[Batman]

Hearing more and more Army chiefs (current, or ex) talking up the need for 'boots on the ground'

 

quite a coincidence, as the army face huge reorganisation

Edited 28 September, 2014 by Batman