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
Does Cameron's seven-point case for Syrian airstrikes stand up?
A fair-sized analysis in The Guardian of Cameron's document on the case for bombing in Syria, written in response to the foreign affairs' committee.
The document: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/foreign-affairs/PM-Response-to-FAC-Report-Extension-of-Offensive-British-Military-Operations-to-Syria.pdf
Test 1 – How airstrikes would improve the chances of the international coalition
The prime minister restates a version of the argument that he has advanced from the start of this process: that Britain is already engaged in a multilateral campaign against Isis in Iraq and that there is little military or strategic logic to a requirement that action be contained on one side of a border that Isis does not recognise.
The distinction is a legal one. The Iraqi government invited western intervention, while the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad is neither a willing nor a desirable partner for collaboration with the RAF – just two years ago, his forces were the priority target for airstrikes. The shifting legal situation is dealt with in the third test, but to first build his case Cameron is making the point that Isis must be deprived of territorial freedom wherever it operates; that the UK has firepower capable of shifting the balance; and that withholding such power is a dereliction of responsibility to our allies.
This is self-evidently true if we accept the underlying presumption that military action to degrade the terrorists’ operational capacity is working – and David Cameron insists that it is. By extension, he argues that the damage done to Isis capabilities in Syria and Iraq necessarily limits the scope for terrorist organisation of attacks in the UK: offence as a form of pre-emptive national defence. Again, it is plausible that hitting Isis bases disrupts terrorist plotting, not least by killing potential plotters, but airstrikes are a blunt and unproven instrument on that front.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/syria-airstrike-case-david-cameron-seven-points-analysis
The Coalition’s military campaign is a key part of this strategy. Without it, ISIL
would continue to expand the territory under its control, develop more
terrorist affiliates across the Middle East and more widely, and encourage
more people to join its murderous endeavour. The Coalition’s military action
in Iraq – in which the UK is fully participating – is having some success. 30% of
ISIL’s territory has been regained. But Raqqa in Syria is ISIL’s capital and home
to a significant proportion of its thousands of hardened fighters, who move
freely between Syria and Iraq. ISIL uses the chaos in Syria to make the money
it needs from oil, and from taxing and extorting money from the Syrian people.
This reinforces the need for the Coalition to step up its military campaign in
Syria to: reduce ISIL’s capacity to take more territory; cut off its supply routes
and sources of finance; and degrade its command and control. Without such
action, the progress made by successful military operations in Iraq would be
lost. That is why the US, France, Turkey and our Arab allies are all committed
to expanding the campaign in Syria. They recognise that, as in Iraq, a greater
UK military contribution to the campaign in Syria would mean greater military
effect against ISIL. This is particularly the case for Turkey and Jordan, two of
Syria’s immediate neighbours who face the biggest threat from ISIL.
The prime minister restates a version of the argument that he has advanced from the start of this process: that Britain is already engaged in a multilateral campaign against Isis in Iraq and that there is little military or strategic logic to a requirement that action be contained on one side of a border that Isis does not recognise.
The distinction is a legal one. The Iraqi government invited western intervention, while the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad is neither a willing nor a desirable partner for collaboration with the RAF – just two years ago, his forces were the priority target for airstrikes. The shifting legal situation is dealt with in the third test, but to first build his case Cameron is making the point that Isis must be deprived of territorial freedom wherever it operates; that the UK has firepower capable of shifting the balance; and that withholding such power is a dereliction of responsibility to our allies.
This is self-evidently true if we accept the underlying presumption that military action to degrade the terrorists’ operational capacity is working – and David Cameron insists that it is. By extension, he argues that the damage done to Isis capabilities in Syria and Iraq necessarily limits the scope for terrorist organisation of attacks in the UK: offence as a form of pre-emptive national defence. Again, it is plausible that hitting Isis bases disrupts terrorist plotting, not least by killing potential plotters, but airstrikes are a blunt and unproven instrument on that front.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/syria-airstrike-case-david-cameron-seven-points-analysis
14 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
The UN is the obvious point of contact here. And I don't like this, but I don't think that staying out will make the nessessary negotiations any easier. Especially when you consider the possibility that the result of negotiations could well be yet more joint military action.
We've long since reached the point with Syria where we aren't so much looking for the best solution as the least worst. 
'Twas retweeted. I don't do Facebook (nor do I have a Twitter a/c). If I'm after a fight, I can always come here. 
Blimey, even the FT's getting in on the act:
Cameron’s cunning plan for bombing Isis in Syria
The questions over extending air raids answered in 43 key points
...
Here, then, are the key things you need to know about UK intervention in Syria.
1. British contributions to the air campaign against the Islamist militants will make absolutely no difference at all.
2. No, really, none.
3. You know all those bombs already being dropped on Isis? Well, now there will be a few more.
4. But not that many more.
5. And many of those that will be dropped on Isis in Syria would have been dropped on Isis in Iraq instead.
6. What do you think we are — made of bombs?
...
8. It is important to stress that, before the decision to bomb Syria, there was absolutely no plan on how to defeat Isis.
9. And there still isn’t.
10. But something must be done.
11. And this is that something.
12. These people are really evil.
13. I mean super-evil. Horrible.
14. So we are all going to feel a lot better about ourselves because now we are going to be in there socking it to them as well.
15. I cannot say this will beat them but I can say it will degrade them, which sounds like something.
16. We are doing this to make Britain safer from the threat of Isis.
17. Even though we cannot offer a single reason whatsoever to believe it will achieve that goal.
...
22. We know that these attacks have to be part of a clear and coherent strategy for isolating and defeating Isis. But we do not have the luxury of waiting for one to emerge.
23. So any ideas on a postcard please.
24. Our military strategists make clear that there can be no ultimate victory over those foul butchers in Isis without “boots on the ground”.
25. But none of those boots are going to be ours.
26. We think that stuff is best left to the military forces in Iraq and Syria that have been doing such a bang-up job fighting Isis up till now.
...
31. We are absolutely clear that the long-term political settlement for Syria does not include Bashar al-Assad.
32. Which is a bit of a pity because Russia and Iran are clear that it does.
33. Syria’s future must lie with the moderate anti-Assad opposition.
34. The ones that Russia has been bombing.
...
39. We recognise that there are people in this country with doubts about the wisdom of this action.
40. But, since those doubts are going to be articulated by Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, we are not too worried about that.
41. We further recognise that stepping up bombing raids could increase the number of refugees fleeing Syria.
42. But they’re not coming here.
43. Because this regional problem requires a regional solution.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4d31c8bc-941c-11e5-b190-291e94b77c8f.html#axzz3sga5WI97
The questions over extending air raids answered in 43 key points
...
Here, then, are the key things you need to know about UK intervention in Syria.
1. British contributions to the air campaign against the Islamist militants will make absolutely no difference at all.
2. No, really, none.
3. You know all those bombs already being dropped on Isis? Well, now there will be a few more.
4. But not that many more.
5. And many of those that will be dropped on Isis in Syria would have been dropped on Isis in Iraq instead.
6. What do you think we are — made of bombs?
...
8. It is important to stress that, before the decision to bomb Syria, there was absolutely no plan on how to defeat Isis.
9. And there still isn’t.
10. But something must be done.
11. And this is that something.
12. These people are really evil.
13. I mean super-evil. Horrible.
14. So we are all going to feel a lot better about ourselves because now we are going to be in there socking it to them as well.
15. I cannot say this will beat them but I can say it will degrade them, which sounds like something.
16. We are doing this to make Britain safer from the threat of Isis.
17. Even though we cannot offer a single reason whatsoever to believe it will achieve that goal.
...
22. We know that these attacks have to be part of a clear and coherent strategy for isolating and defeating Isis. But we do not have the luxury of waiting for one to emerge.
23. So any ideas on a postcard please.
24. Our military strategists make clear that there can be no ultimate victory over those foul butchers in Isis without “boots on the ground”.
25. But none of those boots are going to be ours.
26. We think that stuff is best left to the military forces in Iraq and Syria that have been doing such a bang-up job fighting Isis up till now.
...
31. We are absolutely clear that the long-term political settlement for Syria does not include Bashar al-Assad.
32. Which is a bit of a pity because Russia and Iran are clear that it does.
33. Syria’s future must lie with the moderate anti-Assad opposition.
34. The ones that Russia has been bombing.
...
39. We recognise that there are people in this country with doubts about the wisdom of this action.
40. But, since those doubts are going to be articulated by Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, we are not too worried about that.
41. We further recognise that stepping up bombing raids could increase the number of refugees fleeing Syria.
42. But they’re not coming here.
43. Because this regional problem requires a regional solution.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4d31c8bc-941c-11e5-b190-291e94b77c8f.html#axzz3sga5WI97
