Elsewhere in the Middle East

[LouiseBrooks]

I defy anyone to watch this Iraqi MP without weeping.

Fortunately we had a few politicians such as Diane Abbott, Tory John Baron and Nigel Farage who opposed the strike on Iraq by the majority of our political class.

Let's hope we have a few politicians who see the need to stop Isis and eradicate the terrorist threat which is destabilising the Middle East too. Let's hope some of them listen to people like General Sir Michael Rose.

Why do I think the tosser Miliband changed his mind on his way to parliament since his conversation with Cameron, ask him, but it wasn't because he had generals on the phone, who by the way, have a 'can do' job/attitude and not paid to say no - we are not a military junta.

ISIS had how many well trained fighters 2 to 4-years ago, 4,000?

Are you seriously telling me that they could have taken over the whole of Syria, or did they use the wests 'confusion' to fund themselves better via taking over Syrian oil fields and other assets, which built up their numbers????

Re stopping ISIS backers, as countries have no idea where their citizens offshore wealth goes, including in large overseas investments/projects, how the hell do governments, especially in those with so many rich individuals/Princes, monitor where it goes?

Anyway, as I've said, ISIS have other ways of funding themselves either on the hoof or longer term via their military gains e.g. oil fields,

'but it wasn't because he had generals on the phone, who by the way, have a 'can do' job/attitude and not paid to say no - we are not a military junta.'

Of course we are not a military junta, we are a parliamentary democracy and parliament has to assemble and make the ultimate decision, and politicians make their decisions based on advice from military experts as well as taking public support into account sometimes too.

General Sir Michael Rose is writing in today's Daily Mail with a headline

"I fear our panic stricken politicians are leading us into another bloody shambles in Iraq, says GENERAL SIR MICHAEL ROSE"

He and other former military leaders are an important contribution to the debate and I assume Miliband may listen to their voices before making decisions.

'ISIS have other ways of funding themselves either on the hoof or longer term via their military gains e.g. oil fields'

Who is buying the oil off them? Are you saying that no one has a clue?

BTW if the UK wants our military to join an ever reluctant U.S. as a 'world policeman', and not entering conflicts like Afghanistan unprepared without enough numbers and kit like bullet proof vests, vehicles that can resist road side bombs and helicopters to move troops/casualties around fast enough - then tell the next government in 2015 what cuts you want to other domestic expenditures, already overspending annually by £100 billion.

Currently we are not mandated to fight every terrorist group in the world, far from it, I thought we were sick of deploying troops and ending up in a conflict for a decade.

So if others, like a 270,000 Iraqi army needs to stand idle due to their politicians, we need to think twice before thinking about a cross state war, if that is what you want.

Claig ... tell me WHO out of all the dodgy countries in the world that could buy cheap oil, is buying that oil, it can't be Ken Livingstone trading for Transport Consultancy services.

When we find out, are we meant to send in the SAS or bore them do death via a diplomate?

You have this weird view that a western government like the UK has all this control over the affairs of every other government and it's wealthy people.

Isis have been funded and supported. Let's cut the lines of their support. Let's tell our allies to find out exactly who is aiding them and tell them to stop them. As you say, Isis is only about 10,000 or so and many of them are volunteers who are not professionally trained soldiers.

Let's aid the Iraqi government and get the Sunni tribes on side and come up with a political deal that will stop Isis and let's stop any funding getting to them.

Let's talk to Iran and come up with a united way to eliminate Isis and stop their destabilisation and let's tell any of our allies to stop funding getting to Isis.

The Labour Uncut article said "If the West is serious about defeating Isil, a deal with Assad is unavoidable"

What is the biggest threat to us and the entire region - Assad or Isis?

Let's be serious about stoppong Isis - the bunch of volunteers, mercenaries and funded butchers.

Lets, lets, lets, try to step back and let others more affected in the region sort it out.

Iraq, we are already doing all that, please pay attention.

Iran are Shia pooh, they were only in Iraq as Shia PM Maliki needed their support, rather than agree to a united inclusive Iraq, and Iran influencing the Iraq government had a Brucie Bonus of an 'open season' on Sunnis - ignore them.

Re Syria, how does doing a deal with the devil stop ISIS fighters going elsewhere to re-group, bringing in any Sunnis within the Gulf with a personal or religious gripe?

ISIS is a fluid problem that can not be 'cured' with one military action, now a highly trained force from several years ago that can take on bigger numbers of an enemy within a battle and win, or dig in and cost many opposing soldiers lives trying to dig them out - if in populated areas where bombing them out is not an option.

Claig… re this General Rose up your nose, WHY was Iraq a shambles, WHY was Afghanistan a shambles?

Basically Iraq was a shambles as apart from there NOT being Weapons of Mass Destruction there, the West had no pre conceived idea of what would happen after the fall of Saddam re a new unity government and army.

Hence the problems since, which up until the stepping down of Prime Minister Maliki, Iraq was heading for a split (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) 3-state solution to their crisis, and the ISIS situation funny old world, has the ability to unite the country against a common foe, that we have to be careful, does not include the UK or U.S. troops.

In Afghanistan, read what Dr Reid the Defence Secretary said back then, and understand what ‘mission creep’ can do in time and British military lives.

"UK troops 'to target terrorists"
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4935532.stm

"We would be perfectly happy to leave (Afghanistan) in three years and without firing one shot because our job is to protect the reconstruction."

So I repeat for the numpty-fifth times, and I’m sure this is what Rose means, the UK needs to fully understand what it’s objectives are and HOW, if ever possible, they can be achieved i.e. with 5,000, 10,000 troops and supporting paraphernalia, or if fighting a gorilla army, ever, without REMAINING there for years to come.

'"If the West is serious about defeating Isil, a deal with Assad is unavoidable'

Blair initially was for intevning against Assad

Tony Blair backs intervention against Assad regime in Syria

"West must stop 'wringing our hands' and protect Syrians from Bashar al-Assad and al-Qaida affiliates, ex-prime minister says"

www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/tony-blair-intervention-syria

But it has now become clear that the billions in funding to try and topple Assad has failed. The Jihadis, FSA, merenaries, Al Qqaeda, Isis and the al the rest have failed in the backers' plan to topple Assad.

Blair is now singing a diferent tune

"The war in Syria is an “unmitigated disaster” and the best way forward may be an interim peace deal that allows Bashar al-Assad to stay in power for a short period, forwww.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-23/blair-says-syria-peace-progress-may-mean-assad-staying-in-power.htmlmer U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair said. "

www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-23/blair-says-syria-peace-progress-may-mean-assad-staying-in-power.html

All the alleged threats and deals that the Saudis offerd Russia to drop Assad have turned to dust.

"The details of the talks were first leaked to the Russian press. A more detailed version has since appeared in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, which has Hezbollah links and is hostile to the Saudis.

As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.

Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

Isis has been funded by rich backers and can probably "be switched off". It should be "switched off" so that the Yazidis and Christians can return to their homes.

'Iraq was heading for a split (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) 3-state solution to their crisis'

I think it still is heading for a split, because that is probably what the planners and rich backers and funders want. The Kurds will be armed because of the threat of the funded and backed Isis.

It will be a "de facto" split rather than an official one in order to keep Iraq weak and diminish the role that the Shia can play in the region. The Sunni backers and funders do not want a strong Iran, and some of Saddam's old Sunni generals are currently helping the Isis expansion, but this can easily be "switched off" if the policy of the funders and backers changes due to Western pressure.

So far the policy seems to have been to weaken the Shia i.e. Assad, Hezbollah, the Shia in Iraq and Iran.

But we may start to see a "switch" in policy where we will start dealing with Iran and even Assad as the Sunnis are weakened. Then both the Shia and the Sunni will have been weakened.

The Pope, himself, has called for military action to stop Isis. Like the majority of the British public he was against the politicians' proposed bombing of Syria, but he is for military intervention to stop the barbaric funded Isis.

"Pope Francis has backed international military intervention to protect Christians driven from their homes by the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq.

The pope, who is visiting Korea this week, has written to the United Nations in an 'urgent appeal to the international community to take action to end the humanitarian tragedy now underway'.

This marks a departure from last year when he spoke against intervention in Syria saying 'You cannot end violence with violence'.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725880/Pope-Francis-calls-urgent-military-action-stop-systematic-violence-against-minorities-Iraq.html

Re Syria ..... who gets to decide for the Syrian people, if Assad stays in for 'a short while', whether a weakened ISIS means the rebels can focus on Assad, or not? That is Assad's plan, tough it out, does it men there will be elections later.

Re ISIS funding, it is 'the enemy of my enemy os my friend', so as funding taps are turned off, new ones appear e.g. a Shia Iran trained/funds/supplies Sunni Hamas, so if Iran thought a better funded ISIS destabalizing the region met their long term aims, they'd happily fill that gap as Libya used to train/fund/supply the IRA.

Re Shia/Sunni power games, we know exactly what Syria and Iran are capable of, and what they have done, they have not changed - but it cannot hurt if the west has better relations with them, but trusting them to help 'police' the Gulf, p-lease, don't even go there.

So the Pope is a politically flakey as the rest of them, again nothing to do with Christians being killed, maybe when he gets a vision on EXACTLY what that 'military action' means, he'll post it on Mumsnet.

Oh and re Iraq remaining ONE state, the early post Al-Maliki signs are promising, if I didn't make that clear already.

We may be seeing a shift in strategy by the US. It is to early to say yet.

"Iran nuclear deal changes Middle East alliances as Saudi Arabia rebels against US

Saudi Arabia threatens to reappraise its entire foreign policy after America's nuclear deal with Iran"

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10474143/Iran-nuclear-deal-changes-Middle-East-alliances-as-Saudi-Arabia-rebels-against-US.html

The instability created by Isis and their volunteers and mercenaries is a greater threat to the West directly than doing a deal with a government like Iran. Assad, who once lived in London, used not to be an enemy, then the policy towards him changed, but it may well change back once again.

Peace is the best option. Making deals across the entire region and solving the Israel/Palestine issue, ending sanctions against Iran, ending the war in Syria, "turning off" Isis are the best outcomes for people in the region.

Some rich oil moguls etc may lose out, but jaw jaw is always better than war war.

'So the Pope is a politically flakey as the rest of them'

I suggest you start doing your penance now with talk like that!

Some of our political class are flakier than a Cadbury's flake, but fortunately Farage is not, and nor is the Pope, as far as I can tell.

'Oh and re Iraq remaining ONE state, the early post Al-Maliki signs are promising, if I didn't make that clear already.'

You have to realise that what they say is not what they always do.
Blair told us there were weapons of mass destruction and there was a dodgy dossier, but it turned out not to be true.

Don't believe everthing that is said, watch what is done.

'maybe when he [the Pope] gets a vision on EXACTLY what that 'military action' means, he'll post it on Mumsnet.'

I don't think the Pope reads Mumsnet. I think he reads the Daily Mail and his further explanations are most likely to appear there first, as far as I can tell.

Claig ... I'm sorry, comparing the ongoing threat of thousands of ISIS terrorists with either evil axis members called Syria or Iran, is frankly a very bad joke.

I've mentioned before, the combination of a divisive and weak Obama and the fact the U.S will not only be self sufficient in oil and gas for the first time for 70-odd years (thanks to fracking), it will be exporting the stuff - means an indifferent policy mix to their old friends, but that could change after future regional events or presidents. Insular U.S. policies/presidents historically end up looking to re influence world events, too bad it often takes a war. lol

Anyhoo, as you are now seriously into your 'lets' and 'what ifs'. you've lost me (a cheer goes up), so I'm off to try and get something done. Enjoy.

Isitmebut and claig thanks for your debate, Its been an interesting read and very informative.

I'm absolutely appalled by what is going on. ISIS aren't just unpleasant, they are absolutely barbaric. We have to wake up to this, and fast. They are beheading children, raping and torturing women, crucifying people. They are the most disgusting crimes. I can't imagine how Iraqi people must be feeling, how do you escape this?

I've always been against military action, but we need to get troops in and nip this in the bud. They are just going to grow, otherwise.

lodgerstressohno ..... FYI we have discussed this over this and the previous page, and although military action is needed to stop ISIS, the Iraqi's with a 270,000 army, a similar amount of reservists, and very recent POLITICAL developments key in UNIFYING the country to use those troops against 15,000(?) ISIS radicals stretched over two countries - should be able to do the trick, with our air and intelligence support.

Neither the Iraqi government,or Kurds, have asked for western troops on the ground, and if western troops ARE seen as an army of occupation by some in Iraq e.g. the Sunnis, it could drive wave after wave of new recruits to Sunni ISIS. IMO.

Finally the tide is turning and we may actually ease up on Assad and stop Isis. The hawks failed to win support for bombing Syria and now some leading hawks are saying that we have to talk to Assad.

Former army chief, Lord Dannatt, like may of our top former military, was never a hawk and was against the poiticians' proposed bombing of Assad. He says we should talk to Assad and sort Isis out.

'It's time to talk to Assad': Ex Army chief Lord Dannatt says West must work with Syrian dictator to defeat ISIS... as France slams UK for blocking air strikes last year

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731588/It-s-time-talk-Assad-Former-military-chief-says-West-work-dictator-defeat-ISIS-France-slams-UK-blocking-air-strikes-Syria.html

Will the funding to Isis by some of our allies now finally be cut off as well?

"At the State Department, officials said the US is pressuring Qatar and Turkey to help cut off flows of financing and foreign fighters to Isis, even as they cautioned that they did not see evidence of either government supporting the extremist group officially.

“We are working with governments in the region where we believe there are private citizens funding [Isis] to get them to clamp down even further to cut off those sources of funding,” said spokeswoman Marie Harf.

“We need to attack [Isis] on a variety of fronts, one of which is the bombs that the Pentagon folks are dropping on them right now. One of them is not letting them have access to resources.”

...

Asked whether Qatar, Turkey or Saudi Arabia – another alleged source of funding – were “fully on board”, Harf responded: ”Well, look, we’re talking to them every day about what more we can all do. We know there’s more that needs to be done. We know this is a long-term fight, and we know it’s a tough one. So we’re having those conversations.”

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/general-john-allen-obama-isis-james-foley-killing