Islamic State - another unwinnable war?

[amateur51]

Which politicians do you have in mind that you think may be planning to plant bombs on, say, London Tube trains and buses, like they apparently did on 7th July 2005, then ... ?

Apparently? What nonsense, spouted from the leafy and untrammelled glades of Cheshire.

The politicians created the political environment in which some people felt minded to plant these bombs of which you speak The planting was a reaction not a provocation.. That is why the politicians are dangerous.

[visualnickmos]

. . . The politicians created the political environment in which some people felt minded to plant these bombs of which you speak The planting was a reaction not a provocation.. That is why the politicians are dangerous.

That is it, in a nutshell. Perfectly said.

[johnb]

Which politicians do you have in mind that you think may be planning to plant bombs on, say, London Tube trains and buses, like they apparently did on 7th July 2005, then ... ?

In her evidence to the Chilcott enquiry into the Iraq war testament Eliza Manningham-Buller (Director General of MI5 2002-2007) explained how she had warned the government that the action in Iraq would increase the terrorist threat to the UK. In her evidence she also emphasised how the invasion had worsened the terrorist threat to the UK and was a "highly significant" factor in how "home-grown" extremists justified their actions. This was from someone who supported the invasion.

In spite of Cameron's claims that military action is necessary to protect us in the UK the reality is that it is likely to exacerbate the terrorist threat in Britain, whether or not UK citizens involved in the fighting in Syria/Iraq return to the UK.

I certainly don't believe that the likely increase in UK terrorism resulting from this intervention should determine our actions - though you would think that after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya there would be coherent thought through strategy with well defined realisable objectives and an exit plan.

[amateur51]

In her evidence to the Chilcott enquiry into the Iraq war testament Eliza Manningham-Buller (Director General of MI5 2002-2007) explained how she had warned the government that the action in Iraq would increase the terrorist threat to the UK. In her evidence she also emphasised how the invasion had worsened the terrorist threat to the UK and was a "highly significant" factor in how "home-grown" extremists justified their actions. This was from someone who supported the invasion.

In spite of Cameron's claims that military action is necessary to protect us in the UK the reality is that it is likely to exacerbate the terrorist threat in Britain, whether or not UK citizens involved in the fighting in Syria/Iraq return to the UK.

I certainly don't believe that the likely increase in UK terrorism resulting from this intervention should determine our actions - though you would think that after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya there would be coherent thought through strategy with well defined realisable objectives and an exit plan.

well said & remembered johnb.

i must get the Patrick Cockburn publication you mentioned - it'll be a lot easier to access than the Chilcott Inquiry Report I suspect.

[johnb]

Just one warning about the Patrick Cockburn book "The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising". It is only about 140 pages and bears all the hall marks of having been rather hastily prepared from lectures that he gave in the US and from his articles in The Independent. That said, I have found its insights to be invaluable.

When I bought a copy it was only available from the publishers: OR Books.

[amateur51]

Just one warning about the Patrick Cockburn book "The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising". It is only about 140 pages and bears all the hall marks of having been rather hastily prepared from lectures that he gave in the US and from his articles in The Independent. That said, I have found its insights to be invaluable.

When I bought a copy it was only available from the publishers: OR Books.

Thanks johnb - would you say that reading it would enhance significantly what Cockburn put in his LRB article which I've read?

[Serial_Apologist]

http://www.stopwar.org.uk

I don't suppose it'll be as big as 2003, but I'll probably be going to this (remembering to take some earplugs!)

[MrGongGong]

http://www.stopwar.org.uk

I don't suppose it'll be as big as 2003, but I'll probably be going to this (remembering to take some earplugs!)

Thanks for the link

(will the ones I use for choral evensong be enough attenuation ? )

[amateur51]

Thanks for the link

(will the ones I use for choral evensong be enough attenuation ? )

:giggle:

[ahinton]

All very interesting, but you now seem to be agreeing that the terrorists are the threat and not the politicians as you seemed to 'suggest' in your previous post?

Of course not! The terrorits are a threat - they always are, wherever they are and regardless of whether they're capable of turning that threat into terrorist reality. That does not mean that shorrt-sighted politicains are not also a threat in vasrious ways including the ways in which they might respond to terrorist threats. This is not a one or other situation.

[P. G. Tipps]

In her evidence to the Chilcott enquiry into the Iraq war testament Eliza Manningham-Buller (Director General of MI5 2002-2007) explained how she had warned the government that the action in Iraq would increase the terrorist threat to the UK. In her evidence she also emphasised how the invasion had worsened the terrorist threat to the UK and was a "highly significant" factor in how "home-grown" extremists justified their actions. This was from someone who supported the invasion.

In spite of Cameron's claims that military action is necessary to protect us in the UK the reality is that it is likely to exacerbate the terrorist threat in Britain, whether or not UK citizens involved in the fighting in Syria/Iraq return to the UK.

I certainly don't believe that the likely increase in UK terrorism resulting from this intervention should determine our actions - though you would think that after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya there would be coherent thought through strategy with well defined realisable objectives and an exit plan.

Thank you, johnb, for these comments and your others. I fully understand that argument and it has no little validity. It is refreshing to get an intelligent response to my posts.

However, I'm not convinced that turning our backs on what is happening in the Middle East will make the UK any safer from terrorism, quite the opposite in the long run. Sadly, the terrorism may well increase in the short term.

To put it rather crudely in order to defeat Nazi Germany we had to sacrifice the lives of many of our fellow-citizens in the shorter term for the ultimate goal of eliminating the scourge of political barbarism in Europe. The alternative of the barbarians emerging victorious was just too awful to contemplate.

If the barbarians gain control of large parts of the Middle East that will make terrorism even more likely in the UK in the longer term so hence the need to tackle them now before it is too late, imo.

That is the purely self-interest view. The other is whether we stand aside and allow massacres of innocent civilians to happen in Iraq/Syria without lifting a finger to try and avert these.

For me, the West doing nothing is simply not a real option in these admittedly desperate circumstances, even if we only follow the self-interest line?

[MrGongGong]

To put it rather crudely in order to defeat Nazi Germany we had to sacrifice the lives of many of our fellow-citizens in the shorter term for the ultimate goal of eliminating the scourge of political barbarism in Europe. The alternative of the barbarians emerging victorious was just too awful to contemplate.

If the barbarians gain control of large parts of the Middle East that will make terrorism even more likely in the UK in the longer term so hence the need to tackle them now before it is too late, imo.

Godwin ?

So why is one group of people chopping off the heads of people they don't like an act of the "barbarian"
and another group of people chopping heads worthy of selling fighter jets and trade ?

Why is it OK to bomb children in Gaza but not elsewhere ?

They are ALL wrong IMV
Unless our government starts to act with a bit of consistency then we really are doomed.

You can't "defeat" an idea with fighter jets, soldiers or bombs, i'm no historian but isn't that what history shows ?

[amateur51]

Godwin ?

So why is one group of people chopping off the heads of people they don't like an act of the "barbarian"
and another group of people chopping heads worthy of selling fighter jets and trade ?

Why is it OK to bomb children in Gaza but not elsewhere ?

They are ALL wrong IMV
Unless our government starts to act with a bit of consistency then we really are doomed.

You can't "defeat" an idea with fighter jets, soldiers or bombs, i'm no historian but isn't that what history shows ?

Oh no, Lord Dannatt (known possibly to his friends as Gung Ho?) says we need 'boots on the ground'. But I guess that's another vested interest talking in recognition of the impending general election, still smarting from the memory of the swingeing defence cuts meted out last time.

[MrGongGong]

Oh no, Lord Dannatt (known possibly to his friends as Gung Ho?) says we need 'boots on the ground'.

It's Henry Vth all over again !

and again
and again

[ahinton]

Thank you, johnb, for these comments and your others. I fully understand that argument and it has no little validity. It is refreshing to get an intelligent response to my posts.

However, I'm not convinced that turning our backs on what is happening in the Middle East will make the UK any safer from terrorism, quite the opposite in the long run. Sadly, the terrorism may well increase in the short term.

To put it rather crudely in order to defeat Nazi Germany we had to sacrifice the lives of many of our fellow-citizens in the shorter term for the ultimate goal of eliminating the scourge of political barbarism in Europe. The alternative of the barbarians emerging victorious was just too awful to contemplate.

If the barbarians gain control of large parts of the Middle East that will make terrorism even more likely in the UK in the longer term so hence the need to tackle them now before it is too late, imo.

That is the purely self-interest view. The other is whether we stand aside and allow massacres of innocent civilians to happen in Iraq/Syria without lifting a finger to try and avert these.

For me, the West doing nothing is simply not a real option in these admittedly desperate circumstances, even if we only follow the self-interest line?

What you seem to ignore here is that the largest problem is finding these thugs, not neutralising them - by comparison, that's the easy bit.

We're not talking about tens of thousands of criminals and those of criminal intent conveniently bunched together in one particular piece of operational territory but of individuals spread out and fragmented who are capable of doing very considerable damage wherever they might be. The recent threat on their part that they're considering popping up in Afghanistan (which is not exactly round the corner from where they're wreaking havoc now) is only part of the agenda, the long term part of the rest of which being to disablr the entire Muslim world from West Africa to eastern Kazakhstan in order that they may seize power by force not only throughout the Middle East but also to the immediate west and east thereof, given time and contionuously gathering support.

The other main point, of course, is that they'd be on a hiding to nothing without sufficient weaponry, systems et al and for that they require funding; were they not already remarkably well funded, they'd have been unable to do most of what they've already done. The question that therefore needs first to be asked by those who are pondering how best to address the problem is what IS funding sources have been so far and what its aims for them are anticipated to be in the future and, if that doesn't involve some people putting mirrors up in front of themselves to find at least part of the answer, the question will arguably have proved itself not worth the asking.

"Boots on the ground?" What makes anyone think that, unless there are to be millions of pairs of them, this will stand any chance of leading to each and every individual member of IS, including their sponsors?