Will the UK send troops to combat ISIS?

#61

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#63
Agreed, Mr Corbyn has made his defence policies very clear.

Scary & worrying defence policy admitingly.

The future of the UK may now rest on either Boris (future Tory PM) or Corbyn?

The future SDSR's are becoming more uncomfortable and worrying for all concerned..
I would like to hope that SecDef/MOD and the FCO will inject a modicum of realism into future defence policy. Withdrawal from NATO and abandoning the FI will not happen.

In the longer term if Trident is given up I would hope that conventional defence budgets could benefit substantially.

Trident is looking more and more like a very expensive white elephant.
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
#64
I would like to hope that SecDef/MOD and the FCO will inject a modicum of realism into future defence policy. Withdrawal from NATO and abandoning the FI will not happen.

In the longer term if Trident is given up I would hope that conventional defence budgets could benefit substantially.

Trident is looking more and more like a very expensive white elephant.
Swop trident for a very extensive drone programme combined with enhanced int gathering would in my opinion be a good idea when facing the current threats - isis and their followers don't really give two shits about being nuked - drones however...
 
#65
Trident is looking more and more like a very expensive white elephant.
Didn't Ukraine say something similar about their nuclear weapons?

No money saved from defence projects being shelved has ever gone back into defence. Ever. The NHS will not fund itself you know.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#66
Didn't Ukraine say something similar about their nuclear weapons?

No money saved from defence projects being shelved has ever gone back into defence. Ever. The NHS will not fund itself you know.
Like the Ukes were ever going to Nuke Moscow. Chernobyl is in Ukraine. Fallout from nuking Moscow would only ever fall on Ukraine.

Nukes are a weapon of last resort when we will always find another option. The money can always be spent on better options. Even if not all of the money is recycled into Defence.

Even the Andrew could benefit from more conventional defence spending.
 
#67
Like the Ukes were ever going to Nuke Moscow. Chernobyl is in Ukraine. Fallout from nuking Moscow would only ever fall on Ukraine.

Nukes are a weapon of last resort when we will always find another option. The money can always be spent on better options. Even if not all of the money is recycled into Defence.

Even the Andrew could benefit from more conventional defence spending.
The Soviet prince would have been less keen on invading his neighbour if they could retaliate, that's how deterrence works and nuclear weapons are deterrents as well as weapons of last resort.

Where does this more conventional defence spending come from in a Corbyn government? Not a penny saved by scrapping anything would go to anything other than the NHS and Welfare.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#68
The Soviet prince would have been less keen on invading his neighbour if they could retaliate, that's how deterrence works and nuclear weapons are deterrents as well as weapons of last resort.

Where does this more conventional defence spending come from in a Corbyn government? Not a penny saved by scrapping anything would go to anything other than the NHS and Welfare.
Vlad knew that they wouldn't.

1962 on reverse.
 
#69
There are a number of areas that need addressing in Syria:

1 - the combating of ISIS
2 - regime change / Arab Spring / revolution / democracy
3 - the mass migration due to the Civil War

They are all interlinked

The problem is if you want to put troops on the ground you will be fighting a 2 front war (ISIS and either the regime or rebels). Given the human rights abuses and use of chemical weapons by the regime (plus the fact your already backing the rebels), it's more than likely the regime and ISIS that you'll be combating.

That leads to regime change and possibly invasion (unlikely to happen).

The piecemeal air strikes aren't working, training of fighters isn't working.

I'd say the best the West could do is to politically encourage democracy in Syria with a few carrots. While continuing current efforts (training and air strikes). The only other thing on the ground you could do is establish weapons free safe areas (which could mean combat with all sides) and NFZs.
All valid points

However why should we fight ISIS or Syria while a million men of fighting age from the region sit with their feet up.
No P.M. can commit troops to the conflict while we are treated to daily pictures of young men flocking to Europe citing they are escaping conscription amongst their many reasons.

There are reports the Russians already have T - 90's in the area.
Let them fight for it if they want it.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#70
If for no other reason than to see how awful T-90 really is.

The Russians talk a good game,but often in the past it's not been as good as quoted.
 
#71
Vlad knew that they wouldn't.

1962 on reverse.
Vlad knew they wouldn't do anything because they'd got rid of their best deterrent.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
#72
For the moment if Russia moves military into Syria. It won't bother me one bit. I'll read and listen to what's going on with interest but that's about it. I'll even wish them luck.
 
#73
All valid points

However why should we fight ISIS or Syria while a million men of fighting age from the region sit with their feet up.
No P.M. can commit troops to the conflict while we are treated to daily pictures of young men flocking to Europe citing they are escaping conscription amongst their many reasons.

There are reports the Russians already have T - 90's in the area.
Let them fight for it if they want it.
All true but:
- breaches of international humanitarian law
- breaches of human rights law
- verified use of weapons of mass destruction
- threat to friendly/allied/NATO nations
- threat to regional stability
- AQ groups involved

But the main reason IMHO is to stem the reason for the refugees
 
#74
Not read the entire thread but lets look at history. The British Army at the height of its strength were unable to defeat terrorism in NI because of political restrictions. The British Army were unable to contain Iraq because of whatever, were unable to contain the Taliban because of whatever in any case I'm sure a whole lot of people got a load of gongs for trying. The only combat situation where the British Forces were a credible force was the Falklands campaign in 1982. There was no international pressure or constraints and the mandate set by the Prime Minister was basically "gloves off do whatever it takes".
Syria is an international problem, not restricted to UK influence. Poking ISIS in the side with the occasional air strike is just a waste of taxpayers in a show of journalistic we are contributing to impress the world show. The only thing that will stop the continual rise of organisations like ISIS is extreme ferocity to act as a deterrent for those wishing to gravitate that way. Achieveable with the gloves off by the British or the USA maybe, but I think this affair would be best left to the Russians under the direction of the legitimate albeit dictatorial incumbent President Assaad.
 
#75
Relax - Boris has about as much chance of becoming PM as I do (or Corbyn for that matter).
Boris is not the boffen hes made out to be, that persona is just a carefully crafted characture that hides a sharp political mind so I wouldn't write him of

Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#76
Boris is not the boffen hes made out to be, that persona is just a carefully crafted characture that hides a sharp political mind so I wouldn't write him of

Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
Indeed. He is a very clever and highly ambitious individual.

What I suspect he lacks however is allies within the parliamentary Conservative party - where it has been alleged that he is, er, not universally held in the highest esteem. Without support among the members I fear he has little chance. He will need to do a LOT of legwork to bring people on side. But time will tell.
 
#77
There is no political appetite for such large scale operations. Nor would it be supported by the British public. We have had our fingers badly burned, firstly in Iraq and then Afghanistan.

In addition, even if there was, with almost 20000 staff in the Army alone downgraded at any one time, it is unlikely that we would be able to sustain the manpower requirements for that level of operation.
 
#78
The best situation is, as we have been saying, is make a declaration that if you don't want to live in the modern world, then live in the middle ages properly.

sending in a task force to literally walk house to house confiscate every weapon, vehicle and then turn of the electric, mobile phone towers.

People riding horses with spears and no internet tend to have a less credible threat than people with captured US weaponry and vehicular based fighting platforms.
That's a very distasteful Avatar TBS.
 
#79
Not read the entire thread but lets look at history. The British Army at the height of its strength were unable to defeat terrorism in NI because of political restrictions. The British Army were unable to contain Iraq because of whatever, were unable to contain the Taliban because of whatever in any case I'm sure a whole lot of people got a load of gongs for trying. The only combat situation where the British Forces were a credible force was the Falklands campaign in 1982. There was no international pressure or constraints and the mandate set by the Prime Minister was basically "gloves off do whatever it takes".
Syria is an international problem, not restricted to UK influence. Poking ISIS in the side with the occasional air strike is just a waste of taxpayers in a show of journalistic we are contributing to impress the world show. The only thing that will stop the continual rise of organisations like ISIS is extreme ferocity to act as a deterrent for those wishing to gravitate that way. Achieveable with the gloves off by the British or the USA maybe, but I think this affair would be best left to the Russians under the direction of the legitimate albeit dictatorial incumbent President Assaad.
Early 90s, over 17,000 troops in 3 Bdes in NI

how many in Iraq & Afghanistan?
 
#80
How likely do you think it is that Iraq/Syria will be the next big military intervention? If you think yes, do you also think that we will set up bases as big as Camp Bastion?
Definitely. And there will be huge camps. Bigger than Bastion. Guaranteed.

All together now

Then raise the Butcher's Apron high.
and tell your girlfriend not to cry,
we use to patrol Irish bogs,
but now we're off to bash the Wogs.
Huzza!

It probably needs a bit more work
 

Latest Threads

Top