Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
Sat Sep 27, 2014, 04:40 PM Sep 2014

As the UK prepares for another war in Iraq, is its strategy any more coherent than in 2003?

9/25/2014

Britain is set to join the air campaign against Isis in Iraq, but, going by David Cameron’s speech to the UN General Assembly, the Government has no more idea of what it is getting into in this war than Tony Blair did in 2003.

Mr Cameron says that there should be “no rushing to join a conflict without a clear plan”, but he should keep in mind the warning of the American boxer Mike Tyson that “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”.

The Prime Minister says that lessons have been learned from British military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan but it is telling that he did not mention intervention in Libya for which he himself was responsible.

In fact, there is a much closer parallel between Britain joining an air war in Libya in 2011 than Mr Blair’s earlier misadventures which Mr Cameron was happy to highlight.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/on-the-eve-of-yet-another-war-in-iraq-is-the-uks-strategy-any-more-coherent-than-in-2003-9756567.html


Air strikes will not beat Isis, but on the ground it’s hard to tell friend from foe

What is military common sense may not make political sense


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/air-strikes-will-not-beat-isis-but-on-the-ground-its-hard-to-tell-friend-from-foe-97541

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
As the UK prepares for another war in Iraq, is its strategy any more coherent than in 2003? (Original Post) Jefferson23 Sep 2014 OP
Recommend.......Good Read.. KoKo Sep 2014 #1
You're most welcome..he added a bit more today: Jefferson23 Sep 2014 #2

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
2. You're most welcome..he added a bit more today:
Sun Sep 28, 2014, 01:52 PM
Sep 2014
Air strikes alone will fail to stop Isis



Britain has joined a war against Islamic State (Isis) within a political framework that guarantees frustration if not failure. The House of Commons was rightly wary of another open-ended foreign intervention in Iraq, Syria or anywhere else. But, while MPs are conscious that Britain is entering a minefield, they were much less good at identifying where the mines are and what, if anything, can be done about them. As in 2003, the US and Britain are plugging themselves into a series of inter-related conflicts in Iraq and Syria in which the main players have very different agendas from what they pretend.

Take the current Isis offensive against the Kurdish enclave of Kobane in northern Syria on the border with Turkey, where 300,000 Kurds are squeezed into a smaller and smaller enclave as they battle better armed Isis fighters. Some 200,000 Syrian Kurds have already fled across the Turkish border. Here, if anywhere, the US could have deployed its airpower to attack the advancing militants. It was US air strikes that helped to save the Iraqi Kurdish capital Erbil in August so why not do the same for Kobane?

Strangely, until yesterday the US was using its airpower everywhere in Syria except Kobane where Isis has launched its most serious offensive since US air attacks on Syria began. It has seized 64 villages, using tanks and artillery barrages from guns captured from the Iraqi and Syrian armies. Why the American reticence? It appears to be motivated by a wish not to offend Turkey which never cared for the semi-independent Kurdish cantons, home to many of Syria's 2.5 million-strong Kurdish minority, that have grown up across its southern border since 2011.

Its actions are strong evidence that Ankara can see the advantages of using Isis against the Kurds. Reporters on the ground on the Turkish side of the border say that Isis militants still found it easy last week to cross backwards and forwards, unlike Turkish Kurds wanting to fight Isis. An observer in Turkey asks the question: "Why Isis fighters are still being taken across the border into Turkey to be treated in hospital for their combat wounds, when medical staff treating non-violent but injured protesters in Gezi Square are put on trial for 'assisting terrorism'?"

For all Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's statements at the UN in New York that he opposes Isis, the militants receive a degree of toleration from the Turkish state. This was graphically illustrated by pictures on successive days last week of police treatment of two demonstrations in Istiklal Caddesi in the heart of Istanbul. The first shows pro-Isis demonstrators holding a long white banner untroubled by the police. The second picture shows a group in the same street the following day protesting at the imposition of religious education who are being beaten by police in full riot gear.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/air-strikes-alone-will-fail-to-stop-isis-9759913.html
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»As the UK prepares for an...