Churchill was always very clear on enemy identification
Churchill was also prepared to do deals with unpalatable allies in the pursuit of victory
Cameron isn't remotely close
The election 2015
- Thread starter trudij
- Start date
Churchill was always very clear on enemy identification
Churchill was also prepared to do deals with unpalatable allies in the pursuit of victory
Cameron isn't remotely close
I wish I could link the observer article by Anthony cordesman because it knocks out the guessing and bluffing on the thread as well as rubbish by Hitchens.
"Britain would contribute some of the most effective aircrews and precision strike capabilities of any force in the world and its trikes would have maximum effectiveness".
For some strange reason it won't link but either way he's the expert in these matters, contributing to a leftish newspaper to boot.. He's not some two job journo with an agenda (not a patch on his brother) or those seem to strangely imagine they have a direct line to gchq
this is a great piece though
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/labour-mps-party-agonies-no-way-to-lose-corbyn
"Britain would contribute some of the most effective aircrews and precision strike capabilities of any force in the world and its trikes would have maximum effectiveness".
For some strange reason it won't link but either way he's the expert in these matters, contributing to a leftish newspaper to boot.. He's not some two job journo with an agenda (not a patch on his brother) or those seem to strangely imagine they have a direct line to gchq
this is a great piece though
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/labour-mps-party-agonies-no-way-to-lose-corbyn
Last edited:
:lol: Bloody hell - I knew we'd been hollowing out the military, but .......... We're sending in the greasy grebes!
OK I appreciate your effort, and I do recognise that you're using quotes etc but even you can see the amusing side of that typo
Actually, I think there's a fatwa against heavy metal knocking around the Islamic world somewhere
Anyway, since you've supplied the authors name, I should be able to find it - thx
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Yep - good outing by Rawnsley. He must have been quite tearful when he was writing it.
Here's my attempt to link it then. I had seen it earlier but because it appears in a series of opinion pieces headed by David Davis I didn't scroll down
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ld-parliament-endorse-uk-air-strikes-in-syria
So far as I can establish though Clive, it is indeed a less than coded appraisal of the Brimstone missile (that's the weapon, not the platform its fired from - the Tornado)
"Britain would contribute some of the most effective aircrews and precision strike capabilities of any force in the world and its strikes would have maximum effectiveness with a minimal risk of civilian casualties. "
The lower risk to civilians is a distictive feature of Brimstone (I think "minimal" is over-stating it). It's not a particularly explosive weapon, nor is it a proximity weapon (deliberately so). It's designed to keep the fragmentation and hence collateral damage to a minimum. He wouldn't be able to make the same claim for Paveway II bomb for instance, so you can safely deduce this is the 'articles' focus.
It is capable of destroying a tank, but isn't really designed to go much beyond that, albeit you wouldn't really want one fired at your house admittedly and it would knock a checkpoint out or some flimsy building.
This of course neatly leads us onto your assertion that we can't know what the targetting is. In direct contradiction, we can actually make remarkably well informed assumptions based upon 18 months of evidence from Iraq, the kill stats from Iraq, plus a knowledge of what the weapons are designed for, and how much explosive they carry. The big thing about Brimstone is that it can independently target, ('fire and forget',) and hit moving vehicles at speeds of 70 mph. The American's like it, but not enough to buy it (much to MBDA's frustration).
I don't believe it changes the balance though. As I said, they've been firing these for 18 months in Iraq now, with the RAF estimating 300 ISIL personnel killed yet the net figure is a territorial gain across the region for the Islamic State.
It's worth looking at how the territory that has been recaptured from ISIL was won though. In each case it's required the Pehsmurga, Shia militia, or a unit of the Iraqi army that will fight, to prosecute the effects of the aerial attack on the ground. This is absolutely crucial.
The issue you're facing in Syria is that you aren't prepared (well at least publicly) to bomb in support of the Syrian army, so there has to be a huge question mark over just how you're going to throw them back until you can find a capable proxy to do it for you
Last edited:
So corbyn looks like he's goung to force the whip? He's consulting green ink emails from infiltrating nutters and not the MPs let alone the voters. This is a massive moment for labour and if he does so and loses half the cabinet then it's game over. You have the MPs and voters in one side and the so called members and their glorious leader on the other. Being what they are they will never compromise with the un idealogical pure.
This is is the start of a new party. It's the only way forward. I hope so.
And nd they could only find the country's most disliked mp to appear on Today this morning. Flabbott
This is is the start of a new party. It's the only way forward. I hope so.
And nd they could only find the country's most disliked mp to appear on Today this morning. Flabbott
Last edited:
Reading that Rawnsley piece, it struck me that the 'spot' regarding the £2M cut to the 'short money' wasn't necessarily aimed at Labour, but rather any new party that might spin out of the Corbyn experiment. They will be the biggest losers, which probably pushes 'rebel' labour towards the liberals and a reincarnate SDP
I'm also not totally convinced that Corbyn wouldn't mind losing and this wouldn't be a bad issue for him to martyr himself on. Having said that, most thinking Tories openly accept that this isn't a crystal cut case and that there are legitimate questions to answer. I'm also struggling to see how the government hasn't already got enough votes to force the issue anyway. Even those Tories who are opposed would probably abstain, so I think there's a bit of false shadow boxing going on here
I'm not sure how Diane Abbott has concluded that the public view is swinging towards a no vote though? Most polls I've seen have the support for bombing at about 60%+ which is the sort of figure we've seen previously for similar interventions (not all of which could claim to have been well thought out and successful). Actually .... do we still have a poll function on TH? Can someone rig one up? with a really simple yes / no option and take the temperature here?
Personally I'm still deeply concerned about the Cameron's FSA assessment and reckon this could be the fault line in his entire strategy. It's a bit of a "45 minute moment". He's been called out on it a couple of times and has simply blanked the inquisitors. No one in the government has sought to defend his 70,000 estimate. Every article I've seen that uses the same figure only does so to debunk it. When you drill down deeper into the baseline figure itself an even more alarming picture starts to emerge
I get nervous about politicians who basically don't present the picture when they're trying to achieve another outcome, and this piece of chicanary has all the hallmarks of someone who is selling a pig in a poke
I'm also not totally convinced that Corbyn wouldn't mind losing and this wouldn't be a bad issue for him to martyr himself on. Having said that, most thinking Tories openly accept that this isn't a crystal cut case and that there are legitimate questions to answer. I'm also struggling to see how the government hasn't already got enough votes to force the issue anyway. Even those Tories who are opposed would probably abstain, so I think there's a bit of false shadow boxing going on here
I'm not sure how Diane Abbott has concluded that the public view is swinging towards a no vote though? Most polls I've seen have the support for bombing at about 60%+ which is the sort of figure we've seen previously for similar interventions (not all of which could claim to have been well thought out and successful). Actually .... do we still have a poll function on TH? Can someone rig one up? with a really simple yes / no option and take the temperature here?
Personally I'm still deeply concerned about the Cameron's FSA assessment and reckon this could be the fault line in his entire strategy. It's a bit of a "45 minute moment". He's been called out on it a couple of times and has simply blanked the inquisitors. No one in the government has sought to defend his 70,000 estimate. Every article I've seen that uses the same figure only does so to debunk it. When you drill down deeper into the baseline figure itself an even more alarming picture starts to emerge
I get nervous about politicians who basically don't present the picture when they're trying to achieve another outcome, and this piece of chicanary has all the hallmarks of someone who is selling a pig in a poke
I think the military strategy has been done to death here and should be on the otehr thread in truth. It's too speculative
the question is whether corbyn is determined to drive the shadow cabinet towards resignations or not. This is critical.
He is not a pacifist in any sense of the word. It's a total lie that he routinely opposes war. Dominic Lawson nails that one today nicely
the stance is not about the issue its about facing down the "red tories" in the party.
the best line in the papers this weekend iwas from Andrew marr (who's a poor interviewer) in the times. He rightly points out that if corbyn is pushed out then it's another vote with the green ink nutter members dominating. That will be the next cab off the rank from the far left as leader
flabbott
the question is whether corbyn is determined to drive the shadow cabinet towards resignations or not. This is critical.
He is not a pacifist in any sense of the word. It's a total lie that he routinely opposes war. Dominic Lawson nails that one today nicely
the stance is not about the issue its about facing down the "red tories" in the party.
the best line in the papers this weekend iwas from Andrew marr (who's a poor interviewer) in the times. He rightly points out that if corbyn is pushed out then it's another vote with the green ink nutter members dominating. That will be the next cab off the rank from the far left as leader
flabbott
Last edited:
archie
Senior Jockey
Surely, if they use the same voting system as last time, a left-winger will struggle to get 35 MP nominations to get a go in the member vote.
True. But there is a view that this could be forced through by the nec which is dominated by his people. Haven't got th details to hand but it cropped up yesterday
there is also a ruling that the whip cannot actually be imposed by the leader without cabinet majority
it's either a declaration of war within labour today or not
the question is whether flabbot would appeal to voters across the whole nation and could win the next general election
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
Another interesting article in The Independent by Robert Fisk destroying Cameron`s nonsense about the 70,000 moderate ground troops.
Have you a mole scuttling around the skirting boards of the Shadow Cabinet office Clivex?
Hasn't been decided yet has it?
M
marbler
Guest
I hope it goes the way of a free vote. would rendor a lot of gobshite and hot air from right wing think tanks and commentators as over-the-top.
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
The free vote was announced a few hours ago.
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
To clarify. It was on most newspaper sites a few minutes past 2. Apologies for my slight exaggeration
Doesn't matter of course. No pedant here, but it is strange how slow the bbc can be on some of these matters.
ive just glanced through the Fisk piece. He's always been very Arabist of course but knows the dynamics there. There is a point to be articulated against the moderates claim but the whole piece is hysterical and petulant. Some of the points are plain daft.
ive just glanced through the Fisk piece. He's always been very Arabist of course but knows the dynamics there. There is a point to be articulated against the moderates claim but the whole piece is hysterical and petulant. Some of the points are plain daft.
Last edited:
I believe the BBC have a policy of two independent verifiable sources before they can publish Clive
I have to be honest, I wasn't massively impressed with the Fisk piece either, albeit I don't doubt the general thrust is true. I actually suspect Fisk might have been a bit wrong footed. Everyone seems to know that the FSA is collapsing. It's moderate elements have been killed, or simply melted back into civilian life, whereas the more capable commanders who have risen amongst the patchwork of independent militias that fall under its loose umbrella, have adopted a more extreme stance. Some of them now fight alongside extremist groups, where others take their orders directly from them. In effect their second preference vote is being used to support Al Nusra, and to a lesser extent ISIL. In the fullness of time, the FSA will become Islamist on this trajectory (if they aren't to be considered so already).
I suspect Fisk has probably gone "what!!!" when hearing Cameron claim that they had 70,000 armed soldiers in the field fighting for democracy. He knew it to be wrong, but didn't have the figures at his finger tips to debunk it, as it had become such accepted orthodoxy, that he never thought he'd need to. In fact he's almost being reduced to an incredulous; everybody knows it as his primary rebuff
It will be interesting to see if Cameron repeats the claim in the debate (he hasn't done to date) or whether he switches on to this new group that the American's think they're cobbling together as the latest standard bearer. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has pretty well dismissed the FSA as a credible ally (they couldn't have been much clearer within the confines of diplomatic speak) so it was both a surprise (and very worrying) that the Prime Minister chose to make this claim. It is tantamount to "45 minutes" and dodgy dossier territory. He's playing hard and fast with the truth, and I forget who it was (one of his own MP's) who politely called him out on it.
The FSA will continue to exist of course (the Islamists aren't stupid) they recognise that it's of tremendous value to them if they can convince the west supply it, but I'm not so sure the American's are as gullible regarding the FSA (once bitten etc). And before you say it couldn't happen, it already has. Other groups have wrapped themselves in the language of western facing pro democracy, only to perfrom a miraculous conversion the moment they get their hands on TOW missiles and other pieces of kit.
I still believe it comes back to what I said earlier about asking the correct question to get the right answer. It's difficult to think that Cameron is doing. If he was, he couldn't rationally conclude that the FSA was the answer. It's an unpalatable truth but by process of elimination you have the following options
1: Syrian government/ Assad
2: Arab proxies (Iran, Hezbollah and Kurds) - it remains to be seen if the US can meld a group together, but don't forget they had 10 years to build an Iraqi army
3: Western boots on the ground
4: Allow Putin an open season
The bomberistas are right one thing however. Time is an issue. ISIL are adaptable, and the longer they can draw this out, a war of attrition suits them, especially as they begin to replenish from within their own stock. ISIL will be vulnerable to co-ordinated bombing in support of ground assaults, with their supply lines and escape routes sealed up. Blitzkrieg in any other language. Critically though, this isn't what's being proposed. There is a real danger we congratulate ourselves for a few deep strikes at minor targets which in the ISIL calculation they can absorb and replace so long as we aren't bombing in support of territorial advances.
The big questions that remain unanswered therefore are still How? and Who? - Cameron and Hollande in particular need to recognise that however unpalatable it might be to them, they do have a force just about capable of fulfilling this role if they aren't prepared to do it themselves.
I have to be honest, I wasn't massively impressed with the Fisk piece either, albeit I don't doubt the general thrust is true. I actually suspect Fisk might have been a bit wrong footed. Everyone seems to know that the FSA is collapsing. It's moderate elements have been killed, or simply melted back into civilian life, whereas the more capable commanders who have risen amongst the patchwork of independent militias that fall under its loose umbrella, have adopted a more extreme stance. Some of them now fight alongside extremist groups, where others take their orders directly from them. In effect their second preference vote is being used to support Al Nusra, and to a lesser extent ISIL. In the fullness of time, the FSA will become Islamist on this trajectory (if they aren't to be considered so already).
I suspect Fisk has probably gone "what!!!" when hearing Cameron claim that they had 70,000 armed soldiers in the field fighting for democracy. He knew it to be wrong, but didn't have the figures at his finger tips to debunk it, as it had become such accepted orthodoxy, that he never thought he'd need to. In fact he's almost being reduced to an incredulous; everybody knows it as his primary rebuff
It will be interesting to see if Cameron repeats the claim in the debate (he hasn't done to date) or whether he switches on to this new group that the American's think they're cobbling together as the latest standard bearer. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has pretty well dismissed the FSA as a credible ally (they couldn't have been much clearer within the confines of diplomatic speak) so it was both a surprise (and very worrying) that the Prime Minister chose to make this claim. It is tantamount to "45 minutes" and dodgy dossier territory. He's playing hard and fast with the truth, and I forget who it was (one of his own MP's) who politely called him out on it.
The FSA will continue to exist of course (the Islamists aren't stupid) they recognise that it's of tremendous value to them if they can convince the west supply it, but I'm not so sure the American's are as gullible regarding the FSA (once bitten etc). And before you say it couldn't happen, it already has. Other groups have wrapped themselves in the language of western facing pro democracy, only to perfrom a miraculous conversion the moment they get their hands on TOW missiles and other pieces of kit.
I still believe it comes back to what I said earlier about asking the correct question to get the right answer. It's difficult to think that Cameron is doing. If he was, he couldn't rationally conclude that the FSA was the answer. It's an unpalatable truth but by process of elimination you have the following options
1: Syrian government/ Assad
2: Arab proxies (Iran, Hezbollah and Kurds) - it remains to be seen if the US can meld a group together, but don't forget they had 10 years to build an Iraqi army
3: Western boots on the ground
4: Allow Putin an open season
The bomberistas are right one thing however. Time is an issue. ISIL are adaptable, and the longer they can draw this out, a war of attrition suits them, especially as they begin to replenish from within their own stock. ISIL will be vulnerable to co-ordinated bombing in support of ground assaults, with their supply lines and escape routes sealed up. Blitzkrieg in any other language. Critically though, this isn't what's being proposed. There is a real danger we congratulate ourselves for a few deep strikes at minor targets which in the ISIL calculation they can absorb and replace so long as we aren't bombing in support of territorial advances.
The big questions that remain unanswered therefore are still How? and Who? - Cameron and Hollande in particular need to recognise that however unpalatable it might be to them, they do have a force just about capable of fulfilling this role if they aren't prepared to do it themselves.
Last edited:
Why the rush to have some grand strategy before hitting them? The key is to inflict at least some damage and take out leaders where possible . Wear them down. The rest can come later. It's hardly an overnight decision with so many now involved .
Shouldn't this his be on the other thread. It's flooding the main issue here which is the state of the parties and elections past and present. It's also repetitive
Shouldn't this his be on the other thread. It's flooding the main issue here which is the state of the parties and elections past and present. It's also repetitive
Last edited: