There's such a lack of real information about the situation in Syria. Even DC seems extremely cague about who exactly is in the various forces, how many of them and what their beliefs are. He doesn't seem to have a very clear sense of the geography of the country either. How would FSA troops get to the north from the south in order to take Raqqa for instance, especially if there are no boots on the ground to hold the southern front while they're off on this jaunt?
Assad claimed that the strikes are already generating huge support for ISIS. Iwould like to hear if this is true or not.
I'm deeply concerned that those against bombing don't have any strategy for what should be done instead. Saying 'they'd just go somewhere else anyway if we drove them out of Syria' (probably untrue) is not a reason to do nothing, given the implications of ISIS taking Damascus and the scale of human suffering endured by the Syrian people. Saying that the Syrian people would choose to have ISIS in power rather than global military intervention seems very convenient for the anti-bombing campaign and is not on the whole, what Syrians in the refugee camps are saying, many of whom have male relatives fighting in the FSA and are desperate for military intervention to end a life-endangering civil war. There is a lot of ill-feeling among the Syrian people against Europe, not in relation to air strikes that will endanger them (as they are already horribly endangered), but because Europe has sat back and watched this tragedy unfold without coming to the aid of the FSA before now. But obviously not every Syrian will hold the same opinion about this complex issue and it's easy to find people who will say whatever is convenient.
I think the real problem is that air strikes are a rather cowardly, insufficient way to go about something that clearly calls for a multi-faceted military intervention if there is going to be one at all. It seems as if DC is trying to get rid of this problem with the least inconvenience and cost to the British army (and of course his political career), even if that strategy is not the oe most likely to be successful.
The idea that there's no point shifting ISIS if it means putting power back into the hands of Assad on a temporary basis is absurd. ISIS is a global threat; Assad's intentions don't stretch beyond Syria. ISIS slaughter minorities; Assad slaughters anyone suspected of being anti-regime but does offer protection to minorities. It's a catastrophe that it's come to this, but forcing Assad to relinquish power over a period of time would be preferable to what ISIS is doing to women and minority groups. Assad is also at his most lethal now, when he's struggling for power. Dreadful as the regime was pre-Spring 2011, he was not given to carrying out massacres in the way that he, and ISIS, are happy to do today. Having him in power but struggling in some parts of the country, and ISIS in power in other parts of the country, is just about the worst combination possible for the Syrian people in terms of suffering. Although I don't back DC's 'let's do something, we cannot wait for perfection' position, I do think it's foolish not to move the situation forward to something involving greater stability for Syria, even if it's a temporary step backwards in terms of Assad. With Russia now backing Assad so forcefully, the country (and conceivably the world) could be in this tortuous deadlock indefinitely unless a Europe accepts that there is no 'one step' move that will resolve this bloody mess.
The absence of a coherent plan from DC about what will happen is the most worrying thing. British and American intelligence has been wrong about the Middle East many more times than it's been right over the years - if DC thinks there are 70 000 troops who could easily be mobilised to take Raqqa, that's not a bad reason for suspecting that there aren't. Personally, if I was DC, I would be looking for ways I could work with Russia (since it seems very hot under collar about this issue and is a powerful opponent) on defeating ISIS within the country, making this conditional on government reform, subject to international policing, from Assad. Otherwise Europe could find the situation is resolved by Russia without any opportunity to improve the inhumanity of the regime.
Back in 2011, the Syrian people were not asking for Assad to be overthrown. They wanted a series of very reasonable reforms. Things are different now, both for the party and for them. Many Syrians are keen to return to the country when it can be made 'safe' from the regime's atrocities, from ISIS and from the fighting. Assad is keen to be perceived as reasonable and moderate. I know it's a long shot, but negotiation might be worthwhile.