Would you vote for bombing ISIS in Syria?

[pb21]

Apparently the membership of NSC is not representative of the wider electorate. Polls show a clear majority in favour of air strikes although the lead has reduced over the last 24 hours.

It seems that people are beginning to appreciate the foolishness of air strikes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ock-poll-doubts-mount-Cameron-s-case-war.html

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/01/support-air-strikes-dips-below-majority/

I suspect that this NSC poll is more representative than you think.

 

[Pavilionaire]

In Iraq we've supported a government and their military in taking back control of their country - in principle at least, not altogether successful obviously. So the destruction of IS in Iraq, or defeating them in certain locations will mean control is taken back by an entity you can deal with.

What exactly is the plan when we achieve certain objectives in Syria? If ISIS are defeated, or lose control of towns or regions, then who takes over? What is the power vacuum, who steps in? What are we bombing to achieve, destroy ISIS then just have to deal with Assad, what is the objective if ISIS are effectively destroyed - support the rebels, enter into a conflict against the Russians who support Assad? I don't feel there is a credible long term objective here, or being presented with a strategic plan of what happens if the bombing is successful.

Last night I watched the Newsnight 45 minutes Special Debate on bombing ISIS targets in Syria. I believe that the NO camp won that debate because the YES camp couldn't come up with ANY credible plan for the aftermath. This morning I woke up to hear on the news the Foreign Secretary finally explaining something vaguely resembling a post-bombing road map. All I can assume is that somewhere on the floor of the House of Commons Bar is a pile of fag packets with a lot of lines crossed through.

The politicians have no plan because they don't understand the complexity of the situation in the Middle East, it is beyond them. They are conditioned towards military intervention but the reality is these various communities of the region have been fighting and killing each other for centuries, and will continue to do so unless they - like the West after WW2 - create the political structures to give peace a chance.

 

[Titanic]

Ha ha.

it really is a pantomime now... Dame Margaret Beckett up for the opposition.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

In Iraq we've supported a government and their military in taking back control of their country - in principle at least, not altogether successful obviously. So the destruction of IS in Iraq, or defeating them in certain locations will mean control is taken back by an entity you can deal with.

What exactly is the plan when we achieve certain objectives in Syria? If ISIS are defeated, or lose control of towns or regions, then who takes over? What is the power vacuum, who steps in? What are we bombing to achieve, destroy ISIS then just have to deal with Assad, what is the objective if ISIS are effectively destroyed - support the rebels, enter into a conflict against the Russians who support Assad? I don't feel there is a credible long term objective here, or being presented with a strategic plan of what happens if the bombing is successful.

I don't see the bombing in anyway countering the terrorist threat which can be carried out by a small cell of dangerous people.

That is a good summation of the complexity and difficulty in reaching a positive long term strategic outcome in Syria. In truth no one can say how intervention or non military intervention will play out. But I do not view the long term complexity as a reason not to do all we can militarily to disrupt and degrade IS in the shorter term. There is no logic in bombing in Iraq but not Syria where the main threat is based.

 

[kjgood]

Reluctantly I have to sit in the NO camp on this one. I just dont think that bombing on its own will have the desired effect without boots on the ground for a long, long time. We didnt think through our get out strategies sufficiently in the other recent conflicts and it left us in a mess in long protracted conflcits.

Team GB is broke, we have spent billions over the past few years in the various theatres of conflict, its time to say enough is enough. Should someone attack the UK then hit them with everything we have however the world already hates the UK and more specifically England, lets not give someone else a reason to attack us. You cannot win a terrorist based war no matter how many bombs you drop.

 

[GT49er]

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/01/support-air-strikes-dips-below-majority/

I suspect that this NSC poll is more representative than you think.

But looking at YouGov, perhaps not as representative as you'd like to think!

 

[Titanic]

Dame Margaret Beckett "inaction too leads to death and destruction"

 

[Pavilionaire]

Apparently the membership of NSC is not representative of the wider electorate. Polls show a clear majority in favour of air strikes although the lead has reduced over the last 24 hours.

What polls? I understand that there were polls undertaken in the immediate aftermath of Paris indicating a pro-bombing stance but now, in the cold light of day when we have time to reflect on previous campaigns in the Middle East / Libya it is obvious the real difference will be made by grounds troops and a proper plan for the region agreed by the major players, neither of which are in place.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

it really is a pantomime now... Dame Margaret Beckett up for the opposition.

Behind you!

Yvette Cooper does not look happy.

 

[Titanic]

Dame Margaret Beckett "it is the urging of the United Nations and the pleading from the socialist French government that bring me to support the motion"

A powerful speech, listened to in respectful silence from all sides.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

What polls?

see #241

 

[Titanic]

Behind you!

Yvette Cooper does not look happy.

Poor mare is married to Ed Bollx and he doesn't have anything to get him out of the house

 

[Albumen]

@SadiqKhan: I'm not convinced that the PM's plan will make London safer or defeat Daesh in Syria. I'll be voting against military action today.

 

[scamander]

You make some interesting points but I still can't see any military logic in only bombing ISIS in Iraq. If as is the case ISIS has it's main strength and command and control in Syria it stands to reason they will continually threaten neighbouring Iraq as well as many other nations. I can see the point about military tokenism but the 8% you talk of is not the same as the coalition's precision weapon capability.

We have already intervened and crossed the line, air strikes are not a complete solution but they are one element in a multi faceted approach at degrading and restricting ISIS control. We should either commit militarily to fighting them everywhere or let others do the fighting I favour the first option.

Thanks again JC,

Curiously I don't see why bombing in Iraq means that we should be doing so in Syria. The objectives and targets differ immensely. For example the coalition have known about the oil for a long time, yet only recently starting hitting the refineries. They've only recently started to question openly how ISIS is being funded. Seems odd that these options haven't been rigorously pursued as much as debating whether the UK should join the queue to bomb the few targets in Syria. We'd cause much more disruption by stopping the finance of ISIS than by subscribing to the air attacks which are already fully resourced.

Ironically Iraq might be worth looking at more closely, there's a full air campaign and ground force. Yet ISIS haven't been removed, the US are conducting special force operations to back up the ground force. So in a situation where there is a single enemy faction and ground/air support it's still inconclusive. Syria will simply be bombing without any ground force, Cameron's admitted that the 70,000 includes anyone who we might want to work with. There's also 25,000 extremists who wouldn't assist.

That's a small ground force which has no overall command structure or which can be relied on.

I think at the core we both agree that we should be doing something, where we differ is what that entails. I see the bombing as a token or gesture at best, it won't increase the effectiveness of removing ISIS and it might be that we cannot do this directly as a force option but more working with the players in the region. As I said, I'd start by working on how ISIS is funded, but the worrying thing is that might lead us to those we call allies. This sums up the whole situation for me.

 

[Albumen]

John Baron, a Tory with a conscience?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Last night I watched the Newsnight 45 minutes Special Debate on bombing ISIS targets in Syria. I believe that the NO camp won that debate because the YES camp couldn't come up with ANY credible plan for the aftermath. .

That John Baron speaks well. Must be uncomfortable for the armchair generals on the front bench. Except they have naffed off.

 

[Titanic]

What has Alan Johnson done, or not, to still be plain old Mr?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Labour MPs in favour of airstrikes

According to Guardian research, these Labour MPs are in favour of airstrikes:

Heidi Alexander
Hilary Benn
Tom Blenkinsop
Chris Bryant
Vernon Coaker
Ann Coffey
Mary Creagh
Simon Danczuk
Michael Dugher
Maria Eagle
Natascha Engel (but can’t vote as deputy speaker)
Jim Fitzpatrick
Caroline Flint
Mike Gapes (would vote, but is unwell in hospital)
Dan Jarvis
Helen Jones
Alan Johnson
Chris Leslie
Holly Lynch
Siobhain McDonagh
Lucy Powell
Jamie Reed
Angela Smith
Gisela Stuart
Chuka Umunna
Tom Watson
John Woodcock
We are aware of another five Labour MPs who are minded to vote for airstrikes but who have not made up their minds.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...P=share_btn_tw#block-565ef307e4b0102d07381b03

Funnily enough a rumoured deselection list has many of the same names on it

 

[looney]

Looks like Russia will have it sorted by the time Cameron and Obama have concocted enough lies.

 

[Titanic]

Labour MPs in favour of airstrikes...

you can add Dame Margaret Beckett to that list.