The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Why we shouldn't bomb IS in syria

So the defence secretary wants Britain to bomb IS in Syria as well as Iraq.. But what's the point? It seems unlikely we could win a war against IS simply through airstrikes so there isn't much point. Didn't we arm them in the first place? Seems like the only people winning here would be BAE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33358267

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for $100Bill
$100Bill
1
Original post by TomatoLounge
But what's the point? It seems unlikely we could win a war against IS simply through airstrikes so there isn't much point.


It's all PR, also an excuse to increase military spending.
Original post by TomatoLounge
So the defence secretary wants Britain to bomb IS in Syria as well as Iraq.. But what's the point? It seems unlikely we could win a war against IS simply through airstrikes so there isn't much point. Didn't we arm them in the first place? Seems like the only people winning here would be BAE.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33358267


Airstrikes alone will not win the war, but any approach that doesn't include air strikes will fail miserably as well. Air strikes combined with a capable ground force has brought successes in both Syria and Iraq, and it makes sense for us to do more.

Even in locations when there isn't a ground force to advance against ISIS, air strikes still degrade ISIS' military strength over time and reduce their ability to go on the attack.

We didn't arm ISIS directly. Some western weapons given to Syrian rebels ended up in ISIS hands through defections and ISIS capturing them from western backed groups.
Reply 3
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
Original post by TomatoLounge
So the defence secretary wants Britain to bomb IS in Syria as well as Iraq.. But what's the point? It seems unlikely we could win a war against IS simply through airstrikes so there isn't much point. Didn't we arm them in the first place? Seems like the only people winning here would be BAE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33358267


We never armed ISIS.

If you do not support bombing ISIS in Syria then I assume you do not support the current air strikes either? There is no point hitting an enemy in one area if they can simply regroup in a safe haven elsewhere. It is part of the reason the Taliban remained so strong, they could regroup in Pakistan.

Furthermore what exactly do you propose we do to deal with ISIS? If we leave them alone they will simply get stronger and start launched attacks here.
Original post by Aj12
We never armed ISIS.
If you do not support bombing ISIS in Syria then I assume you do not support the current air strikes either? There is no point hitting an enemy in one area if they can simply regroup in a safe haven elsewhere. It is part of the reason the Taliban remained so strong, they could regroup in Pakistan.
Furthermore what exactly do you propose we do to deal with ISIS? If we leave them alone they will simply get stronger and start launched attacks here.


Well we definitely armed rebels in Syria. At the time the criticism was that a lot of the rebels were Islamists. It seems to me like that turned out to be true.

I'm not saying I know how to defeat IS. Just that airstrikes seem essentially pointless. We've been bombing the region for quite a while and it doesn't seem to have "fixed" it.
Reply 5
Avatar for A5ko
A5ko
3
We need to approach the X-Men at this point.

We could use Cerebral to kill all the IS fighters.
Original post by TomatoLounge
Well we definitely armed rebels in Syria. At the time the criticism was that a lot of the rebels were Islamists. It seems to me like that turned out to be true.

I'm not saying I know how to defeat IS. Just that airstrikes seem essentially pointless. We've been bombing the region for quite a while and it doesn't seem to have "fixed" it.


Dont worry, youre not alone. I am yet to see one person that decries tackling Islamic State head on militarily propose a workable alternative.
Original post by A5ko
We need to approach the X-Men at this point.
We could use Cerebral to kill all the IS fighters.


Preach.
I would be in favour of bombing them, as long as it can't be used to blame us for something in the future. Thousands are being killed and something needs to be done about this.

I'm kind of in favour of sending our extremists there because it means they can get caught in the firebomb too and we don't have to worry about them.
The whole thing is such a mess...first backing the rebels against Assad, many of whom are now working with ISIS. So if you're going to bomb ISIS in Syria, it's effectively helping Assad, who hasn't exactly been the best of leaders recently, has he?
Original post by yelllowribbon
The whole thing is such a mess...first backing the rebels against Assad, many of whom are now working with ISIS. So if you're going to bomb ISIS in Syria, it's effectively helping Assad, who hasn't exactly been the best of leaders recently, has he?


Actually, many of the rebels are working not with ISIS, but with Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. But it still gives a gloomy scenario in a post-Assad Syria.
Original post by flibber
Actually, many of the rebels are working not with ISIS, but with Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. But it still gives a gloomy scenario in a post-Assad Syria.


Okay fair enough, but still not a particularly great bunch of people to be backing with arms
Original post by yelllowribbon
Okay fair enough, but still not a particularly great bunch of people to be backing with arms


The West doesn't really arm the Islamist rebels anymore. The rebels which work with al-Qaeda get their funding from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. But it is true that many of the rebels which once belonged to moderate factions supplied by the West defected to the Islamist factions when they sensed that they weren't getting enough help from them, inevitably carrying their American-supplied arms with them.
Original post by flibber
The West doesn't really arm the Islamist rebels anymore. The rebels which work with al-Qaeda get their funding from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. But it is true that many of the rebels which once belonged to moderate factions supplied by the West defected to the Islamist factions when they sensed that they weren't getting enough help from them, inevitably carrying their American-supplied arms with them.


Isn't it kinda like the Mujahideen in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
Original post by yelllowribbon
Isn't it kinda like the Mujahideen in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


Almost. Many of the mujahideen were Islamists from the start (and many of them later became the Taliban), while in Syria there was a large secular faction (which initiated the uprising in the first place) at the start but many drifted to more Islamist factions when they sensed that the Americans weren't doing enough to defend them from Assad, whereas the Islamist factions had the more enthusiastic support of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. But you're right that many of the American-supplied weapons could, as with the Afghanistan Mujahideen, end up in the hand of al-Qaeda (which cooperates with the Islamist factions), and be used against the West.
Original post by flibber
Almost. Many of the mujahideen were Islamists from the start (and many of them later became the Taliban), while in Syria there was a large secular faction (which initiated the uprising in the first place) at the start but many drifted to more Islamist factions when they sensed that the Americans weren't doing enough to defend them from Assad, whereas the Islamist factions had the more enthusiastic support of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. But you're right that many of the American-supplied weapons could, as with the Afghanistan Mujahideen, end up in the hand of al-Qaeda (which cooperates with the Islamist factions), and be used against the West.


Yeah this is what I meant, in terms of weapons from the west being used against them
Original post by yelllowribbon
Yeah this is what I meant, in terms of weapons from the west being used against them


Yes, but for the moment, the leader of al-Qaeda in Syria has said that he will not use Syria as a base to launch attacks on the West, as he wants to focus his efforts on removing the Assad regime. But if Assad is toppled, then you're right, I believe individual nations may need to intervene militarily in Syria to remove al-Qaeda.
We need to send ground troops in and drive them out of Iraq, the governments are only being complacent in Syria because they want to let ISIL weaken the Assad government so they can allow the Fake Syrian Army swoop in and take power..
Reply 18
Avatar for SeaPony
SeaPony
2
U.S or the UK or in fact any country in the middle east region does not want to destroy ISIS. That is why they are still around! They want Assad gone and to split Iraq into 3.
Original post by TomatoLounge
So the defence secretary wants Britain to bomb IS in Syria as well as Iraq.. But what's the point? It seems unlikely we could win a war against IS simply through airstrikes so there isn't much point. Didn't we arm them in the first place? Seems like the only people winning here would be BAE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33358267



Yes despite knowing ISIS would be created:

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you