Shortly before the invasion of Iraq I was doing an ad for P&G in Beirut. At a conversation on the way from the airport my Lebanese producer said invading Iraq would be such a disaster he couldn't believe the US would really do it. He explained some of the ethnic divisions and said it would make the past twenty five years in Lebanon look like a mere skirmish.
He accurately predicted that defeating Saddam would take no time but the hornets nest that would be disturbed would wreak havoc way beyond both our lifetimes.
I've often wondered why if this information was so obvious to those in the area it wasn't known to our intelligence services?
And in answer to the header all I can say is that it's a pity the 40% who would like to get further involved didn't share with me the wisdom of Yusef Ayoub.
Your problem here is that to this intervention right you have to do it consistently and across borders. Whether there is an appetite for that I'm not but I will say this.
The Obama administration is doing the same trick that it did in Libya where it didn't let on the extent of its involvement. This won't be a CNN televised operation so we'll get an understanding of things very much in fits and starts, if at all..
For example the US has struck ISIS targets around Mosul Dam, 9 or 10 times in the last 48 or so hours alone, more strikes than it carried out in the save the Yazidis and save Irbil operation which had a much wider geographic scope. There are rumours, persistent, of US airstrikes across the border in Syria. The DoD have denied it but I'd give it 48 hours before taking that denial as absolutely correct though it doesn't appear to have any good verification so far. Certainly Assads airforce has been hitting the ISIS 'capital' of Raqqa in the last couple of weeks. Casualties in Raqqa are reportedly so heavy that ISIS has imposed a comms blackout from within the city.
What also appears to have been missed is that an allocation of best part of half a billion dollars has been allocated to supporting Syrian insurgents. This won't be the first time that the Americans have sought to call on the FSA to fight ISIS with the lure of more gear. Once they went as far as suggesting some of the FSA might like to hack around the Western Iraqi border to help out. The FSA and other Islamist groups have slugged it out with ISIS on many occasions already so its a bit late asking.
Just to add to the confusion, Assad's own airforce has struck targets over the border in Iraq and has done for weeks, the Jordanians (named the other day here as one of 5 nations signed on for a military involvement against ISIS) have struck ISIS units near their borders from the air.
This is likely to be a conflict where your average person sitting in front of your TV is really going to get a fraction of what is going on.
On topic, in the absence of a very strong domestic opinion British foreign policy follows the US, and the polling isn't showing a strong domestic opinion either way, so the policy will be decided in the US.
"Isil poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain. The poisonous extremism on the march in Iraq and Syria affects us all – and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge."
I'd support something with a (very) low footprint and ground spotters (for accuracy) to help out some people getting slaughtered but then the political class have to go and give out these BS reasons. Isis would be no direct threat to this country if it wasn't for the political class' policies on immigration and PC.
"Over the last few days on PB there are those who also think the rise of ISIS will lead to a boost for UKIP. I’m not so sure how you harness the rise of ISIS into support for UKIP."
It's not so much a direct boost for UKIP as an anti-boost to the political class on lots of different levels: hypocrisy, lying, being useless, defense cuts, PC etc.
@Y0kel If they are smart, it will not become clear till way later,Trying to score political points only makes for more complications.
It's not so much that. The US administration is simply trying to pretend its popping the odd shot from the air meanwhile they've been flattening ISIS around the Mosul Dam. The president said no boots on the ground yet the other night I reported US & UK SOF presence on the floor. Less than 24 hours later the US said its units had done a recce on Sinjar for humanitarian purposes.
What is a going on is a find and fix operation where those involved are looking to pin ISIS units into 2 or 3 zones, halt their small unit mobility, flatten the crap out of them then send in the Peshmerga under the air screen.
It would be better if they were honest. If and when the BONE flights start, however, those won't be able to be hidden, the reports will come out about the sheer amount of kit being dropped.
Can the RAF make a difference, or would we be holding the Americans' coattails? We've no carriers, so where would we fly from? Presumably even the Saudis have more planes in theatre than we do. Hammond's plan to reduce the armed forces to the SAS and an expanded TA might have a downside.
How do we retake the Mosul dam? Surely IS will just blow the thing up if we looked like defeating them -- flooding surrounding villages and cutting off hydroelectric power to large parts of Iraq.
This is not a fair analysis. As somebody has said we can fly from Cyprus. Do you really think we should equipe ourselves to fight a 20 year guerilla war - a dirty filthy guerilla war - where our troops whould have to be as dirty and filthy as their opponents if the lefty protesters would let them?
In fact we really do need to expand our special forces because they, with proper air support, are what are needed for these situations. This is Iraq, it belongs to Iraqis, they have a parliament and a PM. They have an army. Its their fight. We have the resources to help them. But for once it might be nice to think through what we do want to do before we do it.
The choices we face now are more difficult than they would have been if we had helped those rebels in Syria who would have been friendly to the west insteed of selling them down the river. Its rather sickening to see the opponents then cheerleading now.
Air strike by poll. Better than by focus group, I suspect.
We should. And we should give what aid we can to the Kurds. May create a future problem from the Turks regarding Kurdistan but the alternative is a state covering Syria and Iraq with the very worst deranged zeal mankind has to offer. It'll massively destabilise the region and be a threat to us as well.
Edited extra bit: BBC ticker reporting all the ebola patients in the centre that was attacked have left the centre. Not clear if that's a medical evacuation or if they've run off.
Against IS probably the best start with air strikes is to destroy all the oil and gas facilities under their control. Cut their income. Obviously any military depots and training areas too, but be careful as (like Hamas) these probably have human shields.
SeanT's blog does point out that this sort of extreme ideology tends to be self destructive in purges and faction fighting. Mind you that is probably what the Jews of Medina and idol worshippers of Mecca thought...
There's a particular difference with groups like Isis which makes them much more prone to self-destruct than the more old-fashioned groups like Hamas.
Containing them within the Sunni areas and letting them be themselves leads to rebellions from their allies. The 700 al-Shatit (sp?) they killed recently in Syria were an allied Sunni tribe that rebelled against them.
Can the RAF make a difference, or would we be holding the Americans' coattails? We've no carriers, so where would we fly from? Presumably even the Saudis have more planes in theatre than we do. Hammond's plan to reduce the armed forces to the SAS and an expanded TA might have a downside.
How do we retake the Mosul dam? Surely IS will just blow the thing up if we looked like defeating them -- flooding surrounding villages and cutting off hydroelectric power to large parts of Iraq.
This is not a fair analysis. As somebody has said we can fly from Cyprus. Do you really think we should equipe ourselves to fight a 20 year guerilla war - a dirty filthy guerilla war - where our troops whould have to be as dirty and filthy as their opponents if the lefty protesters would let them?
In fact we really do need to expand our special forces because they, with proper air support, are what are needed for these situations. This is Iraq, it belongs to Iraqis, they have a parliament and a PM. They have an army. Its their fight. We have the resources to help them. But for once it might be nice to think through what we do want to do before we do it.
The choices we face now are more difficult than they would have been if we had helped those rebels in Syria who would have been friendly to the west insteed of selling them down the river. Its rather sickening to see the opponents then cheerleading now.
We've pretty much expanded the SOF as far as we can without diluting it given the pool available from the military. The SRR for example is a relatively recent innovation effectively expanding on the use of 1 Para & Marine units for the support ops purpose.
Looking at the last couple of threads. Was there any consensus on whether No had been able to pull away a bit or yes have still gained a bit of ground?
Can the RAF make a difference, or would we be holding the Americans' coattails? We've no carriers, so where would we fly from? Presumably even the Saudis have more planes in theatre than we do. Hammond's plan to reduce the armed forces to the SAS and an expanded TA might have a downside.
How do we retake the Mosul dam? Surely IS will just blow the thing up if we looked like defeating them -- flooding surrounding villages and cutting off hydroelectric power to large parts of Iraq.
It's not just Isis it's the Sunni tribes and Isis. The tribes need the dam so blowing it up would depend on who physically controls it.
(Actually it would probably be a good way to get the tribes to turn on Isis to spread a rumour they were going to blow up the dam.
"Isil poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain. The poisonous extremism on the march in Iraq and Syria affects us all – and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge."
I'd support something with a (very) low footprint and ground spotters (for accuracy) to help out some people getting slaughtered but then the political class have to go and give out these BS reasons. Isis would be no direct threat to this country if it wasn't for the political class' policies on immigration and PC.
"Over the last few days on PB there are those who also think the rise of ISIS will lead to a boost for UKIP. I’m not so sure how you harness the rise of ISIS into support for UKIP."
It's not so much a direct boost for UKIP as an anti-boost to the political class on lots of different levels: hypocrisy, lying, being useless, defense cuts, PC etc.
Considering OGH, David Cameron and Uncle Tom Cobley have been expecting Ukippers to "return home" to the Tories at the next election because of a supposed fear of Ed is Crap, anything showing Cameron's feebleness in defending Christians and other religious minorities simply solidifies UKIP's vote.
As for immigration, hasn't Farage already offered asylum for Christians from Syria? Isn't he very pally with that true defender of Christians in the Middle East, Putin? I'm surprised that UKIP hasn't already backed intervention or offered asylum to Christian Iraqis.
After all, Farage is a descendant of persecuted Huguenots.
" Because a chaotic failed state riven with ethnic and religious strife serves the interests of the US and its regional partners better than a functioning Arab nationalist dictatorship? (see also Libya) (see also Syria)"
It's true that to get the US on your side you have to support Israel or at the very least not be an enemy of Israel. On any objective criterion of not being a civilized state who doesn't respect human rights democracy and the rights of women none come anywhere near Saudi Arabia the US's no one ally in the region. What's more it beheads up to twenty people in a line every Friday in front of school kids.
I still don't really understand what "intervention" is supposed to achieve. Surely any air strikes are going to kill many civilians aren't they? Just like with Syria last year, it seems utterly bizarre to me the idea that we protect people who are at risk of being slaughtered by....slaughtering them ourselves.
There's a Kurdish region, a Sunni region and a lot of Christian, Yazidi etc villages in a kind of no man's land in between. In theory, as the Kurds are being threatened by Isis as well they could be persuaded to push forward to cover those villages. This would involve ground spotters and air strikes as reinforcement. This seems to be already happening.
If that's as far as it went - sealing off the Sunni areas and then trying to split the tribes from Isis that would seem to me to be doable.
(Obviously the real reasons aren't humanitarian so where any intervention ends will depend on what those real reasons are.)
"Isil poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain. The poisonous extremism on the march in Iraq and Syria affects us all – and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge."
I'd support something with a (very) low footprint and ground spotters (for accuracy) to help out some people getting slaughtered but then the political class have to go and give out these BS reasons. Isis would be no direct threat to this country if it wasn't for the political class' policies on immigration and PC.
"Over the last few days on PB there are those who also think the rise of ISIS will lead to a boost for UKIP. I’m not so sure how you harness the rise of ISIS into support for UKIP."
It's not so much a direct boost for UKIP as an anti-boost to the political class on lots of different levels: hypocrisy, lying, being useless, defense cuts, PC etc.
Considering OGH, David Cameron and Uncle Tom Cobley have been expecting Ukippers to "return home" to the Tories at the next election because of a supposed fear of Ed is Crap, anything showing Cameron's feebleness in defending Christians and other religious minorities simply solidifies UKIP's vote.
As for immigration, hasn't Farage already offered asylum for Christians from Syria? Isn't he very pally with that true defender of Christians in the Middle East, Putin? I'm surprised that UKIP hasn't already backed intervention or offered asylum to Christian Iraqis.
After all, Farage is a descendant of persecuted Huguenots.
How is 'Cameron' supposed to defend people all over the world? The govt are playing its part. Its pretty pathetic that people are reduced to using the suffering of these people as a way to smear Cameron and the tory party.
It is also incorrect. They do not have full control of it as of now.
Evening Mr Y0kel - don't doubt your word for a sec, but care to elaborate, - the BBC article is rather sketchy at best.
They do not have full control of it. It is a large facility with decent space around it and not easy to just access. There is still fighting going on in and around it. They have retrieved substantive amounts of the area but not the whole show as of 8.30PM local time.
Meanwhile ISIS have potentially made gains elsewhere in what is a strategic border area but more confirmation is needed before we can be sure.
"Isil poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain. The poisonous extremism on the march in Iraq and Syria affects us all – and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge."
I'd support something with a (very) low footprint and ground spotters (for accuracy) to help out some people getting slaughtered but then the political class have to go and give out these BS reasons. Isis would be no direct threat to this country if it wasn't for the political class' policies on immigration and PC.
"Over the last few days on PB there are those who also think the rise of ISIS will lead to a boost for UKIP. I’m not so sure how you harness the rise of ISIS into support for UKIP."
It's not so much a direct boost for UKIP as an anti-boost to the political class on lots of different levels: hypocrisy, lying, being useless, defense cuts, PC etc.
Considering OGH, David Cameron and Uncle Tom Cobley have been expecting Ukippers to "return home" to the Tories at the next election because of a supposed fear of Ed is Crap, anything showing Cameron's feebleness in defending Christians and other religious minorities simply solidifies UKIP's vote.
As for immigration, hasn't Farage already offered asylum for Christians from Syria? Isn't he very pally with that true defender of Christians in the Middle East, Putin? I'm surprised that UKIP hasn't already backed intervention or offered asylum to Christian Iraqis.
After all, Farage is a descendant of persecuted Huguenots.
How is 'Cameron' supposed to defend people all over the world? The govt are playing its part. Its pretty pathetic that people are reduced to using the suffering of these people as a way to smear Cameron and the tory party.
"Isil poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain. The poisonous extremism on the march in Iraq and Syria affects us all – and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge."
I'd support something with a (very) low footprint and ground spotters (for accuracy) to help out some people getting slaughtered but then the political class have to go and give out these BS reasons. Isis would be no direct threat to this country if it wasn't for the political class' policies on immigration and PC.
"Over the last few days on PB there are those who also think the rise of ISIS will lead to a boost for UKIP. I’m not so sure how you harness the rise of ISIS into support for UKIP."
It's not so much a direct boost for UKIP as an anti-boost to the political class on lots of different levels: hypocrisy, lying, being useless, defense cuts, PC etc.
Considering OGH, David Cameron and Uncle Tom Cobley have been expecting Ukippers to "return home" to the Tories at the next election because of a supposed fear of Ed is Crap, anything showing Cameron's feebleness in defending Christians and other religious minorities simply solidifies UKIP's vote.
As for immigration, hasn't Farage already offered asylum for Christians from Syria? Isn't he very pally with that true defender of Christians in the Middle East, Putin? I'm surprised that UKIP hasn't already backed intervention or offered asylum to Christian Iraqis.
After all, Farage is a descendant of persecuted Huguenots.
How is 'Cameron' supposed to defend people all over the world? The govt are playing its part. Its pretty pathetic that people are reduced to using the suffering of these people as a way to smear Cameron and the tory party.
No Defence cuts since 2010?
As a matter of interest (I do not know, but suspect the answer is 'none'): have there been any governments since 1970 that have not cut the defence budget in real terms?
I get annoyed when some service big-wig appears on the TV or radio to passionately defend his own service, yet denigrates the others. It is understandable but happens far too often, and allows politicians a get-out clause.
The rivalry between RAF-Navy-Army is so annoying at times.
I still don't really understand what "intervention" is supposed to achieve. Surely any air strikes are going to kill many civilians aren't they? Just like with Syria last year, it seems utterly bizarre to me the idea that we protect people who are at risk of being slaughtered by....slaughtering them ourselves.
There's a Kurdish region, a Sunni region and a lot of Christian, Yazidi etc villages in a kind of no man's land in between. In theory, as the Kurds are being threatened by Isis as well they could be persuaded to push forward to cover those villages. This would involve ground spotters and air strikes as reinforcement. This seems to be already happening.
If that's as far as it went - sealing off the Sunni areas and then trying to split the tribes from Isis that would seem to me to be doable.
(Obviously the real reasons aren't humanitarian so where any intervention ends will depend on what those real reasons are.)
It is very simple. We are seeing the beginning of the three state solution. Funnily enough, it will legitimise IS in the Sunni areas.
The Kurds will now become the new Western apple of the eye along with Israel. And this will start another 50 years of conflict. With Western support , Kurds will poke their snouts in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Sunni Iraq. There is oil to fight for.
Our new allies army, the Peshmergas [ many of whom formerly part of the terrorist PKK ] will still have to fight other Kurds. The IS will help a revived Ansar-i-Islam. Let us not forget, the Kurds are Sunni too !
I still don't really understand what "intervention" is supposed to achieve. Surely any air strikes are going to kill many civilians aren't they? Just like with Syria last year, it seems utterly bizarre to me the idea that we protect people who are at risk of being slaughtered by....slaughtering them ourselves.
There's a Kurdish region, a Sunni region and a lot of Christian, Yazidi etc villages in a kind of no man's land in between. In theory, as the Kurds are being threatened by Isis as well they could be persuaded to push forward to cover those villages. This would involve ground spotters and air strikes as reinforcement. This seems to be already happening.
If that's as far as it went - sealing off the Sunni areas and then trying to split the tribes from Isis that would seem to me to be doable.
(Obviously the real reasons aren't humanitarian so where any intervention ends will depend on what those real reasons are.)
It is very simple. We are seeing the beginning of the three state solution. Funnily enough, it will legitimise IS in the Sunni areas.
The Kurds will now become the new Western apple of the eye along with Israel. And this will start another 50 years of conflict. With Western support , Kurds will poke their snouts in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Sunni Iraq. There is oil to fight for.
Our new allies army, the Peshmergas [ many of whom formerly part of the terrorist PKK ] will still have to fight other Kurds. The IS will help a revived Ansar-i-Islam. Let us not forget, the Kurds are Sunni too !
"Funnily enough, it will legitimise IS in the Sunni areas."
That's the kicker though. The neocons want both 1) Isis intact and fighting Assad in Syria and 2) to split Iraq into three pieces but how can they do that without the Sunni piece in the west joining Isis in Syria? I think they're a bit stuck.
In the end they'll probably end up bombing the **** out of everything because it's simplest but in the interval before that the best thing the Iraqis could do if they want to stop their country being destroyed over and over again is arrange some stable political solution themselves - a more federal state maybe?
"the Kurds are Sunni too"
Yeah but people who live up mountains hate anybody who isn't from their mountain.
I still don't really understand what "intervention" is supposed to achieve. Surely any air strikes are going to kill many civilians aren't they? Just like with Syria last year, it seems utterly bizarre to me the idea that we protect people who are at risk of being slaughtered by....slaughtering them ourselves.
There's a Kurdish region, a Sunni region and a lot of Christian, Yazidi etc villages in a kind of no man's land in between. In theory, as the Kurds are being threatened by Isis as well they could be persuaded to push forward to cover those villages. This would involve ground spotters and air strikes as reinforcement. This seems to be already happening.
If that's as far as it went - sealing off the Sunni areas and then trying to split the tribes from Isis that would seem to me to be doable.
(Obviously the real reasons aren't humanitarian so where any intervention ends will depend on what those real reasons are.)
It is very simple. We are seeing the beginning of the three state solution. Funnily enough, it will legitimise IS in the Sunni areas.
The Kurds will now become the new Western apple of the eye along with Israel. And this will start another 50 years of conflict. With Western support , Kurds will poke their snouts in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Sunni Iraq. There is oil to fight for.
Our new allies army, the Peshmergas [ many of whom formerly part of the terrorist PKK ] will still have to fight other Kurds. The IS will help a revived Ansar-i-Islam. Let us not forget, the Kurds are Sunni too !
"Funnily enough, it will legitimise IS in the Sunni areas."
That's the kicker though. The neocons want both 1) Isis intact and fighting Assad in Syria and 2) to split Iraq into three pieces but how can they do that without the Sunni piece in the west joining Isis in Syria? I think they're a bit stuck.
In the end they'll probably end up bombing the **** out of everything because it's simplest but in the interval before that the best thing the Iraqis could do if they want to stop their country being destroyed over and over again is arrange some stable political solution themselves - a more federal state maybe?
"the Kurds are Sunni too"
Yeah but people who live up mountains hate anybody who isn't from their mountain.
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
"Isil poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain. The poisonous extremism on the march in Iraq and Syria affects us all – and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge."
I'd support something with a (very) low footprint and ground spotters (for accuracy) to help out some people getting slaughtered but then the political class have to go and give out these BS reasons. Isis would be no direct threat to this country if it wasn't for the political class' policies on immigration and PC.
"Over the last few days on PB there are those who also think the rise of ISIS will lead to a boost for UKIP. I’m not so sure how you harness the rise of ISIS into support for UKIP."
It's not so much a direct boost for UKIP as an anti-boost to the political class on lots of different levels: hypocrisy, lying, being useless, defense cuts, PC etc.
Considering OGH, David Cameron and Uncle Tom Cobley have been expecting Ukippers to "return home" to the Tories at the next election because of a supposed fear of Ed is Crap, anything showing Cameron's feebleness in defending Christians and other religious minorities simply solidifies UKIP's vote.
As for immigration, hasn't Farage already offered asylum for Christians from Syria? Isn't he very pally with that true defender of Christians in the Middle East, Putin? I'm surprised that UKIP hasn't already backed intervention or offered asylum to Christian Iraqis.
After all, Farage is a descendant of persecuted Huguenots.
How is 'Cameron' supposed to defend people all over the world? The govt are playing its part. Its pretty pathetic that people are reduced to using the suffering of these people as a way to smear Cameron and the tory party.
Well, he could start by not backing Muslims who eat Christians' livers.
He could stop trying to overthrow governments in Egypt and Syria, thus putting religious minorities in danger in the ensuing chaos and invalidating their hard won protections.
Smearing Cameron? The guy's record speaks for itself!
Can the RAF make a difference, or would we be holding the Americans' coattails? We've no carriers, so where would we fly from? Presumably even the Saudis have more planes in theatre than we do. Hammond's plan to reduce the armed forces to the SAS and an expanded TA might have a downside.
How do we retake the Mosul dam? Surely IS will just blow the thing up if we looked like defeating them -- flooding surrounding villages and cutting off hydroelectric power to large parts of Iraq.
This is not a fair analysis. As somebody has said we can fly from Cyprus. Do you really think we should equipe ourselves to fight a 20 year guerilla war - a dirty filthy guerilla war - where our troops whould have to be as dirty and filthy as their opponents if the lefty protesters would let them?
In fact we really do need to expand our special forces because they, with proper air support, are what are needed for these situations. This is Iraq, it belongs to Iraqis, they have a parliament and a PM. They have an army. Its their fight. We have the resources to help them. But for once it might be nice to think through what we do want to do before we do it.
The choices we face now are more difficult than they would have been if we had helped those rebels in Syria who would have been friendly to the west insteed of selling them down the river. Its rather sickening to see the opponents then cheerleading now.
We've pretty much expanded the SOF as far as we can without diluting it given the pool available from the military. The SRR for example is a relatively recent innovation effectively expanding on the use of 1 Para & Marine units for the support ops purpose.
Never the less I think we could still recruit and try to retain more special forces, whilst continuing to improve the capability with units like the SRR. Furthermore Expanding and / or improving the recruiting standards of units like 1 Para to create an auxilliary to our core special forces ought to be possible. Our army should be geared furthering our special forces which are a real force multiplier. All IMHO of course.
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
Can the RAF make a difference, or would we be holding the Americans' coattails? We've no carriers, so where would we fly from? Presumably even the Saudis have more planes in theatre than we do. Hammond's plan to reduce the armed forces to the SAS and an expanded TA might have a downside.
How do we retake the Mosul dam? Surely IS will just blow the thing up if we looked like defeating them -- flooding surrounding villages and cutting off hydroelectric power to large parts of Iraq.
This is not a fair analysis. As somebody has said we can fly from Cyprus. Do you really think we should equipe ourselves to fight a 20 year guerilla war - a dirty filthy guerilla war - where our troops whould have to be as dirty and filthy as their opponents if the lefty protesters would let them?
In fact we really do need to expand our special forces because they, with proper air support, are what are needed for these situations. This is Iraq, it belongs to Iraqis, they have a parliament and a PM. They have an army. Its their fight. We have the resources to help them. But for once it might be nice to think through what we do want to do before we do it.
The choices we face now are more difficult than they would have been if we had helped those rebels in Syria who would have been friendly to the west insteed of selling them down the river. Its rather sickening to see the opponents then cheerleading now.
We've pretty much expanded the SOF as far as we can without diluting it given the pool available from the military. The SRR for example is a relatively recent innovation effectively expanding on the use of 1 Para & Marine units for the support ops purpose.
Never the less I think we could still recruit and try to retain more special forces, whilst continuing to improve the capability with units like the SRR. Furthermore Expanding and / or improving the recruiting standards of units like 1 Para to create an auxilliary to our core special forces ought to be possible. Our army should be geared furthering our special forces which are a real force multiplier. All IMHO of course.
There's probably room for improvement in all the support stuff: transport planes, refueling, awacs, recce etc. If you have the bods but only one ramshackle Hercules spare to transport them then they're wasted.
(edit: just an example btw no idea what the score is with Hercules)
"Isil poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain. The poisonous extremism on the march in Iraq and Syria affects us all – and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge."
.
"Over the last few days on PB there are those who also think the rise of ISIS will lead to a boost for UKIP. I’m not so sure how you harness the rise of ISIS into support for UKIP."
It's not so much a direct boost for UKIP as an anti-boost to the political class on lots of different levels: hypocrisy, lying, being useless, defense cuts, PC etc.
Considering OGH, David Cameron and Uncle Tom Cobley have been expecting Ukippers to "return home" to the Tories at the next election because of a supposed fear of Ed is Crap, anything showing Cameron's feebleness in defending Christians and other religious minorities simply solidifies UKIP's vote.
As for immigration, hasn't Farage already offered asylum for Christians from Syria? Isn't he very pally with that true defender of Christians in the Middle East, Putin? I'm surprised that UKIP hasn't already backed intervention or offered asylum to Christian Iraqis.
After all, Farage is a descendant of persecuted Huguenots.
How is 'Cameron' supposed to defend people all over the world? The govt are playing its part. Its pretty pathetic that people are reduced to using the suffering of these people as a way to smear Cameron and the tory party.
Well, he could start by not backing Muslims who eat Christians' livers.
He could stop trying to overthrow governments in Egypt and Syria, thus putting religious minorities in danger in the ensuing chaos and invalidating their hard won protections.
Smearing Cameron? The guy's record speaks for itself!
A pretty insane reply - which only persists in the smears. He is not backing the murderous muslims you claim. No rational person could claim so. Your grasp on reality seems very tenuous. Anyone eating anyone else's liver is pretty obscene, I do not limit my disgust to those eating Christian livers. Do you go to church btw you don't sound very Christian. What is it with your obsession with arab Christians? There seems to me a bit of a nasty dog whistle element to it. Do you support the Syrian Christians supporting Assad in gassing their fellow countrymen? I despise murderous actions wherever I see them and pity the victims whoever they are.
Egypt? The extreme muslim sect in Egypt has been overtherown by its own army.
"Isil poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain. The poisonous extremism on the march in Iraq and Syria affects us all – and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge."
I'd support something with a (very) low footprint and ground spotters (for accuracy) to help out some people getting slaughtered but then the political class have to go and give out these BS reasons. Isis would be no direct threat to this country if it wasn't for the political class' policies on immigration and PC.
"Over the last few days on PB there are those who also think the rise of ISIS will lead to a boost for UKIP. I’m not so sure how you harness the rise of ISIS into support for UKIP."
It's not so much a direct boost for UKIP as an anti-boost to the political class on lots of different levels: hypocrisy, lying, being useless, defense cuts, PC etc.
Considering OGH, David Cameron and Uncle Tom Cobley have been expecting Ukippers to "return home" to the Tories at the next election because of a supposed fear of Ed is Crap, anything showing Cameron's feebleness in defending Christians and other religious minorities simply solidifies UKIP's vote.
As for immigration, hasn't Farage already offered asylum for Christians from Syria? Isn't he very pally with that true defender of Christians in the Middle East, Putin? I'm surprised that UKIP hasn't already backed intervention or offered asylum to Christian Iraqis.
After all, Farage is a descendant of persecuted Huguenots.
How is 'Cameron' supposed to defend people all over the world? The govt are playing its part. Its pretty pathetic that people are reduced to using the suffering of these people as a way to smear Cameron and the tory party.
No Defence cuts since 2010?
As a matter of interest (I do not know, but suspect the answer is 'none'): have there been any governments since 1970 that have not cut the defence budget in real terms?
I get annoyed when some service big-wig appears on the TV or radio to passionately defend his own service, yet denigrates the others. It is understandable but happens far too often, and allows politicians a get-out clause.
The rivalry between RAF-Navy-Army is so annoying at times.
The problem inherited by this govt was that there were a series of defence projects which could n ot be afforded in the budget provoded by Labour. Even with the budget standing still there had to be cuts in projects.
"Isil poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain. The poisonous extremism on the march in Iraq and Syria affects us all – and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge."
.
"Over the last few days on PB there are those who also think the rise of ISIS will lead to a boost for UKIP. I’m not so sure how you harness the rise of ISIS into support for UKIP."
It's not so much a direct boost for UKIP as an anti-boost to the political class on lots of different levels: hypocrisy, lying, being useless, defense cuts, PC etc.
Considering OGH, David Cameron and Uncle Tom Cobley have been expecting Ukippers to "return home" to the Tories at the next election because of a supposed fear of Ed is Crap, anything showing Cameron's feebleness in defending Christians and other religious minorities simply solidifies UKIP's vote.
As for immigration, hasn't Farage already offered asylum for Christians from Syria? Isn't he very pally with that true defender of Christians in the Middle East, Putin? I'm surprised that UKIP hasn't already backed intervention or offered asylum to Christian Iraqis.
After all, Farage is a descendant of persecuted Huguenots.
How is 'Cameron' supposed to defend people all over the world? The govt are playing its part. Its pretty pathetic that people are reduced to using the suffering of these people as a way to smear Cameron and the tory party.
Well, he could start by not backing Muslims who eat Christians' livers.
He could stop trying to overthrow governments in Egypt and Syria, thus putting religious minorities in danger in the ensuing chaos and invalidating their hard won protections.
Smearing Cameron? The guy's record speaks for itself!
A pretty insane reply - which only persists in the smears. He is not backing the murderous muslims you claim. No rational person could claim so. Your grasp on reality seems very tenuous. Anyone eating anyone else's liver is pretty obscene, I do not limit my disgust to those eating Christian livers. Do you go to church btw you don't sound very Christian. What is it with your obsession with arab Christians? There seems to me a bit of a nasty dog whistle element to it. Do you support the Syrian Christians supporting Assad in gassing their fellow countrymen? I despise murderous actions wherever I see them and pity the victims whoever they are.
Egypt? The extreme muslim sect in Egypt has been overtherown by its own army.
You are clearly in an hysteric frame of mind.
The only hysteria I can see is in this spittle-flecked reply. Assad gassing people -evidence? Christian's supporting Assad in gassing people if he was -evidence? Dreadful.
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
It occurs to me the best way to destroy ISIS is to suck them into a Battle of Stalingrad - i.e. offer them an iconic victory, a place where they will concentrate their manpower - then pulverise them from the air.
What do ISIS most want?
Tel Aviv, but Obama may find pulverising it from the air domestically difficult.
It would be nice if people were still motivated by old fashioned motives like duty and having a vocation but let's face it, that's not our society any more.
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
It occurs to me the best way to destroy ISIS is to suck them into a Battle of Stalingrad - i.e. offer them an iconic victory, a place where they will concentrate their manpower - then pulverise them from the air.
What do ISIS most want?
Interesting thought - Irbil would have been best for that until recently: lots of American civilians (and CIA), lots of infidel refugees and an oil centre and (until recently) relatively unprotected.
Or a Q ship like a big media splash on a Christian refugee camp somewhere across a wide open nearby desert (make sure to film the prettiest girls and lashings of gold jewelry) and say there's only a handful of old geezers as protectors.
As it's prob too late to use Irbil the best place in Iraq to try something like that now would probably be [blank].
(not saying as one of my rellies is there)
In Syria not sure where would fit the bill but the same principles would apply, somewhere that involves both money and people they'd particularly like to kill.
It would be nice if people were still motivated by old fashioned motives like duty and having a vocation but let's face it, that's not our society any more.
We to our best to preserve those virtues.
So do I, but I wouldn't rely upon a misplaced notion of them still existing to provide decent public services, because when that happens, old people die of starvation.
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
It occurs to me the best way to destroy ISIS is to suck them into a Battle of Stalingrad - i.e. offer them an iconic victory, a place where they will concentrate their manpower - then pulverise them from the air.
There's probably room for improvement in all the support stuff: transport planes, refueling, awacs, recce etc. If you have the bods but only one ramshackle Hercules spare to transport them then they're wasted.
(edit: just an example btw no idea what the score is with Hercules)
With the retirement of the C130K at the end of last year, we have about 25 C130J's (which are confusingly newer than the K's). For larger kit we have eight C17's. The Voyager air-to-air refueller can also be fitted to carry freight, and we should be getting some spanking-new A400's whenever that project actually delivers ...
We are being stretched mightily thin on transport planes, but then again, the cost of these planes is just so enormous.
There's probably room for improvement in all the support stuff: transport planes, refueling, awacs, recce etc. If you have the bods but only one ramshackle Hercules spare to transport them then they're wasted.
(edit: just an example btw no idea what the score is with Hercules)
With the retirement of the C130K at the end of last year, we have about 25 C130J's (which are confusingly newer than the K's). For larger kit we have eight C17's. The Voyager air-to-air refueller can also be fitted to carry freight, and we should be getting some spanking-new A400's whenever that project actually delivers ...
We are being stretched mightily thin on transport planes, but then again, the cost of these planes is just so enormous.
There's probably room for improvement in all the support stuff: transport planes, refueling, awacs, recce etc. If you have the bods but only one ramshackle Hercules spare to transport them then they're wasted.
(edit: just an example btw no idea what the score is with Hercules)
With the retirement of the C130K at the end of last year, we have about 25 C130J's (which are confusingly newer than the K's). For larger kit we have eight C17's. The Voyager air-to-air refueller can also be fitted to carry freight, and we should be getting some spanking-new A400's whenever that project actually delivers ...
We are being stretched mightily thin on transport planes, but then again, the cost of these planes is just so enormous.
With the wind down in Afghanistan imminent, the armed forces are keen to get involved with aid work and disaster relief, aiming to get involved with the Fire Service UKISAR, with offers of transport and logistics. I guess that won't be happening much now.
I guess Austin Mitchell didn't notice all the male apparat-chicks that populated the PLP between 1997 and 2010.
Remarkable that he managed to squeeze the Euan Blair for Bootle line in there even after the list of candidates came out. There might have been a germ of a point there somewhere but sadly it seems to be lost in the bitterness of his tone. I see political giant IOS has already dismissed his entire political career.
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
It occurs to me the best way to destroy ISIS is to suck them into a Battle of Stalingrad - i.e. offer them an iconic victory, a place where they will concentrate their manpower - then pulverise them from the air.
What do ISIS most want?
The lesson of stalingrad is that pulverising armies from the air doesn't work; the luftwaffe bombed the shit out of the place before the battle really started.
Y0Kel has an armchair in standard orbit above Mosul so we can take his word for it
(only kidding!!)
He has very good sources in a Middle East country hugging the Mediterranean coast.
You seem to have an issue with that, because you have mentioned it several times, on each occasion as part of an apparent attempt to denigrate his commentary
A thought on the recent increase in coverage of women's football and rugby: is this mirroring interest, news firms attempting to lead the public to be more interested in the women's version of popular sports, or politically correct pandering to relatively unpopular sports?
I remain perplexed by the absence of women in F1 (as drivers, there are two, effectively, team principals and an increasing number of engineers). They're smaller, so less weight and lower centre of mass, and a marketer's dream (a significant aspect given the financial difficulty about a third of the grid finds itself in).
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
It occurs to me the best way to destroy ISIS is to suck them into a Battle of Stalingrad - i.e. offer them an iconic victory, a place where they will concentrate their manpower - then pulverise them from the air.
What do ISIS most want?
The lesson of stalingrad is that pulverising armies from the air doesn't work; the luftwaffe bombed the shit out of the place before the battle really started.
It was Operation Uranus in November 1942 that really sealed the fate of the Sixth Army under von Paulus.
There's probably room for improvement in all the support stuff: transport planes, refueling, awacs, recce etc. If you have the bods but only one ramshackle Hercules spare to transport them then they're wasted.
(edit: just an example btw no idea what the score is with Hercules)
With the retirement of the C130K at the end of last year, we have about 25 C130J's (which are confusingly newer than the K's). For larger kit we have eight C17's. The Voyager air-to-air refueller can also be fitted to carry freight, and we should be getting some spanking-new A400's whenever that project actually delivers ...
We are being stretched mightily thin on transport planes, but then again, the cost of these planes is just so enormous.
For truly humanitarian missions (I mean unequivocally so), I believe there's a case for diverting some of our bloated international aid budget to help the armed services do that.
Y0Kel has an armchair in standard orbit above Mosul so we can take his word for it
(only kidding!!)
He has very good sources in a Middle East country hugging the Mediterranean coast.
You seem to have an issue with that, because you have mentioned it several times, on each occasion as part of an apparent attempt to denigrate his commentary
The problem with airstrikes is the type of battlefied. It may not always be clear what the targets are, unless you have special forces on the ground to assist. There will be civilian casualties and errors made.
This is nothing like Libya, where I think the enemy targetted were on an open road.
Best option to deal with ISIS is to try to take out the leadership, wherever they are mainly based.
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
It occurs to me the best way to destroy ISIS is to suck them into a Battle of Stalingrad - i.e. offer them an iconic victory, a place where they will concentrate their manpower - then pulverise them from the air.
What do ISIS most want?
The lesson of stalingrad is that pulverising armies from the air doesn't work; the luftwaffe bombed the shit out of the place before the battle really started.
Completely different war. Pulverising the shit out of ISIS, from the air, would certainly do a lot of good. They have no air power. It is very hard to hide from drones and planes in a desert.
If we take out their tanks, artillery and missiles with air power, plus a lot of their lovely jihadists in their unmistakeable black uniforms and Toyota pick-ups, we can then let the Kurds and Iraqi army mop up the rest.
I was making an analogy, not a direct equation.
Sure. I was also trying to make the general and critically important point that pulverising armies from the air doesn't happen. Stalingrad proves that, but so does every battle in every war since the Wright brothers. If it worked armies would be obsolete, and they aren't: you have to go mano a mano.
Is this thread a "who can express an opinion most confidently about something they know absolutely sod all about" competition? I know it's been about middle-eastern military strategy up until this point, but I have some thoughts about the cricket.
There's probably room for improvement in all the support stuff: transport planes, refueling, awacs, recce etc. If you have the bods but only one ramshackle Hercules spare to transport them then they're wasted.
(edit: just an example btw no idea what the score is with Hercules)
With the retirement of the C130K at the end of last year, we have about 25 C130J's (which are confusingly newer than the K's). For larger kit we have eight C17's. The Voyager air-to-air refueller can also be fitted to carry freight, and we should be getting some spanking-new A400's whenever that project actually delivers ...
We are being stretched mightily thin on transport planes, but then again, the cost of these planes is just so enormous.
With the wind down in Afghanistan imminent, the armed forces are keen to get involved with aid work and disaster relief, aiming to get involved with the Fire Service UKISAR, with offers of transport and logistics. I guess that won't be happening much now.
Whilst C130s are mentioned, until recently if short we could always nick the Nigerian Hercules at Marshalls Airport here in Cambridge:
“Since the aircraft was unable to pressurise, due to massive corrosion of the front windscreen frames, it was flown low level at 12,000 feet from Lagos to England, by pilots wearing helmets and oxygen masks,” Lovelock says.
“Radar and communication systems were also unserviceable, therefore navigation was based on road maps, and a hand held Satellite Navigation; radio communication with London Military, was ensured by a hand held Mobile phone.”
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
It occurs to me the best way to destroy ISIS is to suck them into a Battle of Stalingrad - i.e. offer them an iconic victory, a place where they will concentrate their manpower - then pulverise them from the air.
What do ISIS most want?
The lesson of stalingrad is that pulverising armies from the air doesn't work; the luftwaffe bombed the shit out of the place before the battle really started.
It works if they're out in the open so the equivalent to a Stalingrad would be a big juicy target that required crossing open ground like a land version of Q ship.
That could possibly have been done with Irbil by tempting them to attack it and having a lot of planes lying in wait.
Is this thread a "who can express an opinion most confidently about something they know absolutely sod all about" competition? I know it's been about middle-eastern military strategy up until this point, but I have some thoughts about the cricket.
The one thing I prefer about FB to here; vanilla doesn't have a 'like' button.
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
It occurs to me the best way to destroy ISIS is to suck them into a Battle of Stalingrad - i.e. offer them an iconic victory, a place where they will concentrate their manpower - then pulverise them from the air.
What do ISIS most want?
The lesson of stalingrad is that pulverising armies from the air doesn't work; the luftwaffe bombed the shit out of the place before the battle really started.
It works if they're out in the open so the equivalent to a Stalingrad would be a big juicy target that required crossing open ground like a land version of Q ship.
That could possibly have been done with Irbil by tempting them to attack it and having a lot of planes lying in wait.
Ssh, don't give all these brilliant strategies away, what if they read PB?
Is this thread a "who can express an opinion most confidently about something they know absolutely sod all about" competition? I know it's been about middle-eastern military strategy up until this point, but I have some thoughts about the cricket.
It was either a thread on this, or a PB poll on who will the Indyref.
For truly humanitarian missions (I mean unequivocally so), I believe there's a case for diverting some of our bloated international aid budget to help the armed services do that.
There was talk that some of the cost of our military security programme in Afghanistan for protection of aid workers was going to be funded by DfID but I've seen no news on that recently. I fully approve of the military's costs in aid delivery to be funded that way. Our "sandhurst in the desert" should be funded that way too. Training Afghan officers is an aid programme.
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
It occurs to me the best way to destroy ISIS is to suck them into a Battle of Stalingrad - i.e. offer them an iconic victory, a place where they will concentrate their manpower - then pulverise them from the air.
What do ISIS most want?
The lesson of stalingrad is that pulverising armies from the air doesn't work; the luftwaffe bombed the shit out of the place before the battle really started.
It works if they're out in the open so the equivalent to a Stalingrad would be a big juicy target that required crossing open ground like a land version of Q ship.
That could possibly have been done with Irbil by tempting them to attack it and having a lot of planes lying in wait.
Stalingrad was a disastrous defeat for the Germans, but it was operation Citadel that destroyed them as an offensive force, and Bagration which broke their back.
The reason that ISIS has been so effective as an organisation is threefold; a unified leadership with good command and control, fanatical troops that are willing to both die and kill, and thirdly the coerced or voluntary support of a lot of the people in the area.
The first is liable to degradation by targeted intelligence and drone strikes, as is their logistics. Their fanatics will not be easy to turn, but it maybe possible to turn them against each other by exploiting their differences and feuds (locals are bound to dislike the incomers). Finally, the locals need to see the futility and barbarity of ISIS for what it is. Intelligence and destruction of organisation can turn ISIS back into a disorganised rabble, who then could be destroyed by local people out for revenge.
This is not the Eastern Front 1943, this is more like the Khymer Rouge 1979.
I notice the BBC are now reporting that the Peshmerga claim to be 80% of the way there regarding the Mosul Dam but with quite a bit of mop up. The earlier reports were indeed premature.
In addition US special forces were in that assault.
The US airpower currently being utilised isn't all coming off an aircraft carrier. I mentioned Jordan as a hub the pother day but I can tell you a number of US airbases in the Gulf region are busy for a weekend.....
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
It occurs to me the best way to destroy ISIS is to suck them into a Battle of Stalingrad - i.e. offer them an iconic victory, a place where they will concentrate their manpower - then pulverise them from the air.
What do ISIS most want?
The lesson of stalingrad is that pulverising armies from the air doesn't work; the luftwaffe bombed the shit out of the place before the battle really started.
It works if they're out in the open so the equivalent to a Stalingrad would be a big juicy target that required crossing open ground like a land version of Q ship.
That could possibly have been done with Irbil by tempting them to attack it and having a lot of planes lying in wait.
Ssh, don't give all these brilliant strategies away, what if they read PB?
If their aim was to defeat Isis with minimum collateral damage then schemes like SeanT's to separate Isis from the Sunni tribes by tempting them to attack something which puts them out in the open would be worth considering imo.
However if their main aim is 1) attack Assad and 2) split Iraq into three parts and they can't use Isis to do (1) because they would mess up (2) then by a process of elimination their strategy towards Isis will eventually become: 1) bomb Isis in Iraq 2) bomb Isis in Syria 3) accidentally on purpose bomb the Syrian army to provoke AA 4) attack Assad for shooting at their jets
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
It occurs to me the best way to destroy ISIS is to suck them into a Battle of Stalingrad - i.e. offer them an iconic victory, a place where they will concentrate their manpower - then pulverise them from the air.
What do ISIS most want?
The lesson of stalingrad is that pulverising armies from the air doesn't work; the luftwaffe bombed the shit out of the place before the battle really started.
It works if they're out in the open so the equivalent to a Stalingrad would be a big juicy target that required crossing open ground like a land version of Q ship.
That could possibly have been done with Irbil by tempting them to attack it and having a lot of planes lying in wait.
Stalingrad was a disastrous defeat for the Germans, but it was operation Citadel that destroyed them as an offensive force, and Bagration which broke their back.
The reason that ISIS has been so effective as an organisation is threefold; a unified leadership with good command and control, fanatical troops that are willing to both die and kill, and thirdly the coerced or voluntary support of a lot of the people in the area.
The first is liable to degradation by targeted intelligence and drone strikes, as is their logistics. Their fanatics will not be easy to turn, but it maybe possible to turn them against each other by exploiting their differences and feuds (locals are bound to dislike the incomers). Finally, the locals need to see the futility and barbarity of ISIS for what it is. Intelligence and destruction of organisation can turn ISIS back into a disorganised rabble, who then could be destroyed by local people out for revenge.
This is not the Eastern Front 1943, this is more like the Khymer Rouge 1979.
I think the original Stalingrad reference was more of a "like a Stalingrad" than a direct analogy.
Is this thread a "who can express an opinion most confidently about something they know absolutely sod all about" competition? I know it's been about middle-eastern military strategy up until this point, but I have some thoughts about the cricket.
Knowing absolutely, totally, blisteringly f*ck all about a subject has never stopped you from commenting in the past. e.g. your confident pronunciations about the virtues of mass immigration into the UK, even as you enjoy life in monocultural Japan.
Mass immigration into the UK - is it necessarily a bad thing?
For truly humanitarian missions (I mean unequivocally so), I believe there's a case for diverting some of our bloated international aid budget to help the armed services do that.
There was talk that some of the cost of our military security programme in Afghanistan for protection of aid workers was going to be funded by DfID but I've seen no news on that recently. I fully approve of the military's costs in aid delivery to be funded that way. Our "sandhurst in the desert" should be funded that way too. Training Afghan officers is an aid programme.
Personally I think the a lot of aid should be channelled this way. The army building bridges, delivering food aid, etc. I see it keeping them skilled, as well as a useful force for good in the world.
There have been so many B5 rumours before that it's difficult to take any new ones seriously.
In the early hours of this morning I completed the fourth and final season of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series)
Re-imagined BSG is one of the best TV programmes in the last 10 years.
I found it a bit meh, to be honest, and especially the last series. Gaius Baltar has to one of the most annoying TV characters in the last ten years. ;-)
There have been so many B5 rumours before that it's difficult to take any new ones seriously.
In the early hours of this morning I completed the fourth and final season of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series)
Great series. One of the few with a truly satisfying ending.
So many brilliant series have mediocre endings, or worse: Sopranos, Breaking Bad, West Wing.
The best ending of all was, of course, Spartacus. Total genius. Entirely correct, and moving, and surprising - even though you knew what was going to happen.
Your liking of Battlestar Galactica's ending shows poor understanding of plot, and exactly why you will never be a best-selling author.
Is this thread a "who can express an opinion most confidently about something they know absolutely sod all about" competition? I know it's been about middle-eastern military strategy up until this point, but I have some thoughts about the cricket.
Knowing absolutely, totally, blisteringly f*ck all about a subject has never stopped you from commenting in the past. e.g. your confident pronunciations about the virtues of mass immigration into the UK, even as you enjoy life in monocultural Japan.
Mass immigration into the UK - is it necessarily a bad thing?
Depends on what sort of mass immigration,unskilled we don't need and we are getting thousands from the new EU countries.
Mr. B, I saw some of the pilot on Youtube. Two casting decisions were vastly improved on for the first season (Tony Robinson and Brian Blessed) but they made a huge mistake by transforming Blackadder from the character we see in II-IV into the snivelling wretch of the first season.
The first does have some good moments, but I agree it's not as good as the others generally.
Sometimes, plan "A" does not quite work out. The reason the Western powers are really scared about IS is not being mentioned. They bombed the hell out of AQitAP [ Yemen ] and you hardly heard anything about it except when the American born leader was killed.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
Again that's the kicker. Isis were for Syria and now they've blown back into Iraq it's going wrong.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
It occurs to me the best way to destroy ISIS is to suck them into a Battle of Stalingrad - i.e. offer them an iconic victory, a place where they will concentrate their manpower - then pulverise them from the air.
What do ISIS most want?
The lesson of stalingrad is that pulverising armies from the air doesn't work; the luftwaffe bombed the shit out of the place before the battle really started.
It works if they're out in the open so the equivalent to a Stalingrad would be a big juicy target that required crossing open ground like a land version of Q ship.
That could possibly have been done with Irbil by tempting them to attack it and having a lot of planes lying in wait.
Ssh, don't give all these brilliant strategies away, what if they read PB?
If their aim was to defeat Isis with minimum collateral damage then schemes like SeanT's to separate Isis from the Sunni tribes by tempting them to attack something which puts them out in the open would be worth considering imo.
However if their main aim is 1) attack Assad and 2) split Iraq into three parts and they can't use Isis to do (1) because they would mess up (2) then by a process of elimination their strategy towards Isis will eventually become: 1) bomb Isis in Iraq 2) bomb Isis in Syria 3) accidentally on purpose bomb the Syrian army to provoke AA 4) attack Assad for shooting at their jets
so it doesn't matter.
They might be a little bit clever about not being tempted into the open, what with being experienced in desert warfare and having access to the information that a bombing campaign against them is on the cards. And what is going to tempt them?
Mr. B, I saw some of the pilot on Youtube. Two casting decisions were vastly improved on for the first season (Tony Robinson and Brian Blessed) but they made a huge mistake by transforming Blackadder from the character we see in II-IV into the snivelling wretch of the first season.
The first does have some good moments, but I agree it's not as good as the others generally.
The crucial decision was to bring in Ben Elton as a writer, for series 2-4, to help Richard Curtis (who wrote the first series alone). Like him or not, Elton has a gift for writing screen comedy, while Curtis is (was?) better at plots and character.
Baldrick was in the first series too, which was co-written by Rowan Atkinson.
There almost was no second series. There's a 60 minute documentary on the dvd set telling you all about it.
I don't know if it has been mentioned on here. But VICE NEWS has a full length documentary on ISIS and also had a pre-cursor to that with a guy doing dispatches from the front line of ISIS vs Kurds (after he finished that, he rushed to report on Israel vs Hamas, for a bit of light relief).
Well worth checking out IMO. Balls of steel the guys behind both. The sort of insight you just aren't getting from the mass media.
Comments
Israel's foreign policy goals. Wolfowitz et al knew exactly what they were doing.
The Obama administration is doing the same trick that it did in Libya where it didn't let on the extent of its involvement. This won't be a CNN televised operation so we'll get an understanding of things very much in fits and starts, if at all..
For example the US has struck ISIS targets around Mosul Dam, 9 or 10 times in the last 48 or so hours alone, more strikes than it carried out in the save the Yazidis and save Irbil operation which had a much wider geographic scope. There are rumours, persistent, of US airstrikes across the border in Syria. The DoD have denied it but I'd give it 48 hours before taking that denial as absolutely correct though it doesn't appear to have any good verification so far. Certainly Assads airforce has been hitting the ISIS 'capital' of Raqqa in the last couple of weeks. Casualties in Raqqa are reportedly so heavy that ISIS has imposed a comms blackout from within the city.
What also appears to have been missed is that an allocation of best part of half a billion dollars has been allocated to supporting Syrian insurgents. This won't be the first time that the Americans have sought to call on the FSA to fight ISIS with the lure of more gear. Once they went as far as suggesting some of the FSA might like to hack around the Western Iraqi border to help out. The FSA and other Islamist groups have slugged it out with ISIS on many occasions already so its a bit late asking.
Just to add to the confusion, Assad's own airforce has struck targets over the border in Iraq and has done for weeks, the Jordanians (named the other day here as one of 5 nations signed on for a military involvement against ISIS) have struck ISIS units near their borders from the air.
This is likely to be a conflict where your average person sitting in front of your TV is really going to get a fraction of what is going on.
If they are smart, it will not become clear till way later,Trying to score political points only makes for more complications.
I'd support something with a (very) low footprint and ground spotters (for accuracy) to help out some people getting slaughtered but then the political class have to go and give out these BS reasons. Isis would be no direct threat to this country if it wasn't for the political class' policies on immigration and PC.
"Over the last few days on PB there are those who also think the rise of ISIS will lead to a boost for UKIP. I’m not so sure how you harness the rise of ISIS into support for UKIP."
It's not so much a direct boost for UKIP as an anti-boost to the political class on lots of different levels: hypocrisy, lying, being useless, defense cuts, PC etc.
What is a going on is a find and fix operation where those involved are looking to pin ISIS units into 2 or 3 zones, halt their small unit mobility, flatten the crap out of them then send in the Peshmerga under the air screen.
It would be better if they were honest. If and when the BONE flights start, however, those won't be able to be hidden, the reports will come out about the sheer amount of kit being dropped.
In fact we really do need to expand our special forces because they, with proper air support, are what are needed for these situations. This is Iraq, it belongs to Iraqis, they have a parliament and a PM. They have an army. Its their fight. We have the resources to help them. But for once it might be nice to think through what we do want to do before we do it.
The choices we face now are more difficult than they would have been if we had helped those rebels in Syria who would have been friendly to the west insteed of selling them down the river. Its rather sickening to see the opponents then cheerleading now.
There's a particular difference with groups like Isis which makes them much more prone to self-destruct than the more old-fashioned groups like Hamas.
Containing them within the Sunni areas and letting them be themselves leads to rebellions from their allies. The 700 al-Shatit (sp?) they killed recently in Syria were an allied Sunni tribe that rebelled against them.
(Actually it would probably be a good way to get the tribes to turn on Isis to spread a rumour they were going to blow up the dam.
As for immigration, hasn't Farage already offered asylum for Christians from Syria? Isn't he very pally with that true defender of Christians in the Middle East, Putin? I'm surprised that UKIP hasn't already backed intervention or offered asylum to Christian Iraqis.
After all, Farage is a descendant of persecuted Huguenots.
Kurdish forces in northern Iraq take control of Mosul dam captured by Islamic State jihadists, Kurdish officials say.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28826349
" Because a chaotic failed state riven with ethnic and religious strife serves the interests of the US and its regional partners better than a functioning Arab nationalist dictatorship? (see also Libya) (see also Syria)"
It's true that to get the US on your side you have to support Israel or at the very least not be an enemy of Israel. On any objective criterion of not being a civilized state who doesn't respect human rights democracy and the rights of women none come anywhere near Saudi Arabia the US's no one ally in the region. What's more it beheads up to twenty people in a line every Friday in front of school kids.
.
If that's as far as it went - sealing off the Sunni areas and then trying to split the tribes from Isis that would seem to me to be doable.
(Obviously the real reasons aren't humanitarian so where any intervention ends will depend on what those real reasons are.)
Austin's rant is the last hurrah of a narcissistic never quite has been. The PLP will be better of without him.
Meanwhile ISIS have potentially made gains elsewhere in what is a strategic border area but more confirmation is needed before we can be sure.
(only kidding!!)
I get annoyed when some service big-wig appears on the TV or radio to passionately defend his own service, yet denigrates the others. It is understandable but happens far too often, and allows politicians a get-out clause.
The rivalry between RAF-Navy-Army is so annoying at times.
Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week (10 polls field-work 10th Aug to 15th Aug):
Labour 36.2%
Cons 33.1%
UKIP 13.1%
LibDems 8.8%
Um, we can't give any net changes as this is our first time, but we promise to do so next week
The Kurds will now become the new Western apple of the eye along with Israel. And this will start another 50 years of conflict. With Western support , Kurds will poke their snouts in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Sunni Iraq. There is oil to fight for.
Our new allies army, the Peshmergas [ many of whom formerly part of the terrorist PKK ] will still have to fight other Kurds. The IS will help a revived Ansar-i-Islam. Let us not forget, the Kurds are Sunni too !
That's the kicker though. The neocons want both 1) Isis intact and fighting Assad in Syria and 2) to split Iraq into three pieces but how can they do that without the Sunni piece in the west joining Isis in Syria? I think they're a bit stuck.
In the end they'll probably end up bombing the **** out of everything because it's simplest but in the interval before that the best thing the Iraqis could do if they want to stop their country being destroyed over and over again is arrange some stable political solution themselves - a more federal state maybe?
"the Kurds are Sunni too"
Yeah but people who live up mountains hate anybody who isn't from their mountain.
IS threatens Jordan. That is when the sh*t will hit the fan !
He could stop trying to overthrow governments in Egypt and Syria, thus putting religious minorities in danger in the ensuing chaos and invalidating their hard won protections.
Smearing Cameron? The guy's record speaks for itself!
Our army should be geared furthering our special forces which are a real force multiplier. All IMHO of course.
In the gap between the US deciding what to do and probably deciding to bomb the **** out of everything the Iraqis - if they have any sense - should try and figure out their own local way of creating a stable compromise before the mega bombing starts.
(edit: just an example btw no idea what the score is with Hercules)
Anyone eating anyone else's liver is pretty obscene, I do not limit my disgust to those eating Christian livers. Do you go to church btw you don't sound very Christian. What is it with your obsession with arab Christians? There seems to me a bit of a nasty dog whistle element to it. Do you support the Syrian Christians supporting Assad in gassing their fellow countrymen? I despise murderous actions wherever I see them and pity the victims whoever they are.
Egypt? The extreme muslim sect in Egypt has been overtherown by its own army.
You are clearly in an hysteric frame of mind.
" Well, he could start by not backing Muslims who eat Christians' livers."
Are they halal?
Or a Q ship like a big media splash on a Christian refugee camp somewhere across a wide open nearby desert (make sure to film the prettiest girls and lashings of gold jewelry) and say there's only a handful of old geezers as protectors.
As it's prob too late to use Irbil the best place in Iraq to try something like that now would probably be [blank].
(not saying as one of my rellies is there)
In Syria not sure where would fit the bill but the same principles would apply, somewhere that involves both money and people they'd particularly like to kill.
We are being stretched mightily thin on transport planes, but then again, the cost of these planes is just so enormous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft
An interesting (well, if you're into such things) article on the last K's is:
http://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2013/12/04/feature-raf-c-130k-hercules-in-storage/
that's some hangar
A thought on the recent increase in coverage of women's football and rugby: is this mirroring interest, news firms attempting to lead the public to be more interested in the women's version of popular sports, or politically correct pandering to relatively unpopular sports?
I remain perplexed by the absence of women in F1 (as drivers, there are two, effectively, team principals and an increasing number of engineers). They're smaller, so less weight and lower centre of mass, and a marketer's dream (a significant aspect given the financial difficulty about a third of the grid finds itself in).
The Soviets encircled the Germans from the flanks, guarded by weaker Italian, Hungarian and Romanian divisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_uranus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOD_St_Athan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7967089.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-17113947
Hoon was such a disaster for the military.
This is nothing like Libya, where I think the enemy targetted were on an open road.
Best option to deal with ISIS is to try to take out the leadership, wherever they are mainly based.
Worth a read.
That could possibly have been done with Irbil by tempting them to attack it and having a lot of planes lying in wait.
The reason that ISIS has been so effective as an organisation is threefold; a unified leadership with good command and control, fanatical troops that are willing to both die and kill, and thirdly the coerced or voluntary support of a lot of the people in the area.
The first is liable to degradation by targeted intelligence and drone strikes, as is their logistics. Their fanatics will not be easy to turn, but it maybe possible to turn them against each other by exploiting their differences and feuds (locals are bound to dislike the incomers). Finally, the locals need to see the futility and barbarity of ISIS for what it is. Intelligence and destruction of organisation can turn ISIS back into a disorganised rabble, who then could be destroyed by local people out for revenge.
This is not the Eastern Front 1943, this is more like the Khymer Rouge 1979.
In addition US special forces were in that assault.
The US airpower currently being utilised isn't all coming off an aircraft carrier. I mentioned Jordan as a hub the pother day but I can tell you a number of US airbases in the Gulf region are busy for a weekend.....
However if their main aim is 1) attack Assad and 2) split Iraq into three parts and they can't use Isis to do (1) because they would mess up (2) then by a process of elimination their strategy towards Isis will eventually become:
1) bomb Isis in Iraq
2) bomb Isis in Syria
3) accidentally on purpose bomb the Syrian army to provoke AA
4) attack Assad for shooting at their jets
so it doesn't matter.
The great J.M. Straczysnki is looking to do a Babylon-5 reboot.
http://www.tvwise.co.uk/2014/08/babylon-5-movie-eyes-2016-production-start/
ISIS aren't a bunch of sacrificial lambs for Allah, they aim to win. Their acute sense of economics and holding economic levers is also notable.
I'm hoping the new Farscape film will be good, but it's been a while, so I'm not sure. Off-chance of a new series, if the film does well.
Oh, hang on ... :-)
The first series was sub-par but from the second series on it's still good.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11039702/Lib-Dems-have-Neanderthal-views-on-diversity-says-Hackney-Heroine.html
The first does have some good moments, but I agree it's not as good as the others generally.
*Leaving aside the additional dialogue from William Shakespeare.
There almost was no second series. There's a 60 minute documentary on the dvd set telling you all about it.
Well worth checking out IMO. Balls of steel the guys behind both. The sort of insight you just aren't getting from the mass media.
The sound of hoof beats 'cross the glade!
Good folk, lock up your son and daughter.
Beware the deadly flashing blade
unless you want to end up shorter.
Black Adder, Black Adder!
He rides a pitch black steed.
Black Adder, Black Adder!
He's very bad indeed.
Black: his gloves of finest mole.
Black: his codpiece made of metal.
His horse is blacker than a vole;
his pot is blacker than his kettle.
Black Adder, Black Adder, with many a cunning plan.
Black Adder, Black Adder, you horrid little man.
David Cameron says a "firm security response" is needed In Iraq as senior clergy criticise the Government's "incoherent" policy"
http://news.sky.com/story/1319963/pm-warns-of-terror-state-on-europes-doorstep