Saturday, 20 September 2014

Confusing ISIS Strategy

The French and Americans are bombing ISIS in Iraq while the British delay making a decision on whether to join in, nervous about following the ISIS into Syria after the vote last year that said loud and clear no military action in Syria.    
'Let me be clear. Britain will not be taking part in any air strikes in Syria. We have already had that discussion in our parliament last year and we won’t be revisiting that position' said Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond dismissing the prospect of UK air strikes against ISIS in Syria.
Not that the US really need US air power apart from to present a united front and i doubt if ISIS are celebrating that the Brits sitting this one out because they still face a heavy pounding which makes me wonder why they were so keen to get involved in a fight which is only going to have one winner and it won't be them.  
I understand the intimidation angle designed to eliminate local resistance and make the job of taking over towns and cities easier and i can see how they can paint it as a Muslim v the West contest which would help with recruitment to their cause but now they have the Worlds most powerful military facing off against them and they will get massacred in large numbers and lose any gains they have made such as the way Al Queada and the Taliban are a fraction of the force they were albeit it has taken over a decade to get to this point.
Maybe the point is to draw the Americans and it's allies into a protracted ground war and then hope that when the body bags start landing back in the States they will lose the stomach for a fight and like previously, they will pull back and they will have enough ISIS fighters left to pick up where they left off which luckily is a awful strategy and will thankfully see them and their ability to massacre whole towns wiped out.
As the British Government is standing by the decision not to perform military action in Syria, and know full well that it was attacking Syria that was debated and not the terrorists in Syria, you do wonder if they know that the plan is to attack the Syrian Government troops in some manipulative mission slip and that is why they are not joining in.  

7 comments:

Nog said...

What's so frustrating is that we get in a dumb war, create a mess, and then get too conflict-fatigued to clean it up.

It's this vicious 5-10 year cycle going back at least a few decades. For instance, in the 90s we got fatigued in a dumb conflict in Somalia, and then stayed out of Rwanda allowing a genocide to happen.

The fact that we're coming right off a dumb conflict doesn't mean that everyone should be passive with IS. And it's nice when taxpayers outside of the United States chip in. Luxembourg probably benefits as much from stability as anyone.

-Nog

Keep Life Simple said...

Seems reasonable though I would think Peru gets the most benefit

Q

Lucy said...

It is trying to be put across by the politicians that this is a new conflict, separate to the last Iraq war but everyone can see that this is a direct result of what happened last time so i see it like you that this is cleaning up from the last one.

Peru?

Keep Life Simple said...

Luxembourg?

Keep Life Simple said...

the Iraq war had to some impact, but I don't see it as a root cause to the situation in Syria. Ditto Egypt and Libya.

Q

Nog said...

Peru needs world stability too.

Lucy said...

For the llamas?