UK military problems & policies

[davidbfpo]

Ex-SAS commanders are not known for taking a high profile on current events, so this article deserves reading. It does refer to the UK decision to become involved last week. It is a moot point whether it also applies to the USA and others outside the region.

The title 'Get the politics right, then the plan for the military might work' and sub-titled 'Bombing IS jihadists provides a 'sugar rush', but the Government has been silent on what it knows is needed'.

Link:http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...k-9759924.html

Here is one key paragraph:

But to those of us that know Iraq, terrorists and extremism, and have fought organisations such as Isis within that country, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the situation does not look as positive, or the plan as robust, as that presented on Friday in Parliament. Projected by the theatre of Parliament, the deployment of six RAF bombers has taken on a military and political significance out of all proportion to their real military value. They provide us and our leaders, desperate to do something, with a military sugar rush, to be followed inevitably in six months’ time with the “war-downer” reality that things are not going as we wish them to, and that the long-term costs of our involvement are escalating, in ways that will need to be explained, or hidden, during a general election.

Then shorter passages:

Bombing that is not geared to an Iraqi political purpose will only create propaganda opportunities for Isis, as it seeks to legitimise its hold over western Iraq.....Bombing alone will not break the will of Isis to hold its ground in Iraq, and it must be joined on the ground by the Iraqi military if it is to be decisive. What, then, of this essential task?.....Bombing and killing Isis and Iraqis without a political solution for the Iraqi Sunni is to risk strategic failure – to risk making the Iraqi Sunni see Baghdad as oppressors and not liberators. Bombing without an effective Iraqi army is to risk operational stalemate on the ground and a fixing of the front lines, both of which appear to define the course that we have set ourselves.

Personally I am deeply pessimistic from the comfort of my armchair about the UK resuming a military role in Iraq, for our national interests bar one which I will end with later. Secondly the Iraqi state shows no sign of changing and as Joel Wing reports on the main Iraq-Syria thread the state armed forces remain, well a mess. I fear we have done what ISIS wanted, as western powers return to the region with just bombs.

What is the UK national interest bar one? Joining in a coalition which the USA has advocated, so once again we stand beside you.

[Bill Moore]

David,

All good points, and I think I can argue we already failed strategically when we failed to find WMD, and changed the balance of power in the region in a way that favored both Iran and sunni extremists. The current approach may have been well intended, but the underlying assumption or hope that Iraq would step up politically and militarily hasn't happened.

Can we recover from failure? England did during WWII, as have others throughout history. My question for you is should the West fight IS regardless based on the threat the pose to us?

[davidbfpo]

[davidbfpo]

Bill asked me:

My question for you is should the West fight IS regardless based on the threat the(y) pose to us?

From my armchair faraway Bill my response is political not military.

I am unconvinced that we, the UK, should join this alliance and take military action in Iraq, maybe with Syria being added.

First and foremost we do not understand the region well enough to navigate our way around and achieve the goal of a united, coherent Iraqi state. This weakness is partly historical and reflects the lack of information, let alone intelligence on what is happening now.

This academic piece has value 'With bad intelligence on Islamic State, West is flying in the dark':https://theconversation.com/with-bad...the-dark-32247 This analyst takes a more strategic viewpoint - what can intervention achieve:http://leftfootforward.org/2014/09/5...st-should-ask/ and from ICSR:https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/...ikes-stop-isis

Secondly I am not convinced ISIS poses such a threat to the UK and allied national security now or in the near future, that it demands military action. In the debate here last week a number of MPs referred to the threat to Turkey, which is a very weak argument given Turkey's own stance to date. Yes like all jihadists they hate the 'far enemy'. Have they the motivation and capability to attack us now? It seems to me they are busy enough carving out their emirate and contemplating how to attack Baghdad.

The allied military action taken so far has been criticised in many quarters; reflected in the other SWC thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=21196

I support giving aid to the enemies of ISIS such as the Kurds in both countries, although their objectives are quite limited and they are unlikely to want to attack traditionally Sunni Arab areas. As for the Iraqi state I see little action of consequence.

In Syria it is harder to decide on how to fight ISIS. I would oppose a "deal" with Bashir Assad and his rivals the jihadist-inclined groups. As many have noted a number of those groups may ally themselves with ISIS now. If that happens the non-jihadist groups are doomed. Assad rarely attacks ISIS, as Crowbat reminds us.

Containment of ISIS is achievable:

1) Reduce its newly acquired heavy weapons capability (artillery, tanks etc)
2) Support the Kurdish enclaves in Syria
3) Support rival groups overtly and covertly to attack / resist ISIS
4) Enforce a 'no fly zone' over Syria (build up to this)
5) Weaken its message, finances and flow of personnel