-
There are lots of things we don't know that influence what the "right" decision is, but one outcome that is certain is that airstrikes would kill a significant number of civilians. Surely this should be more than a minor consideration.
-
I personally do not think Bombing ISIS will make them more of a threat to us as a recruiting tool etc.
Can you explain your rationale for this?
My thinking is that it isn't about anyone reacting by deciding that, having been bombed, ISIS are the people that they want or need to support. It's about the narrative that ISIS will paint from what happens during and after the bombings. The narrative where the deaths of brave warriors and innocent muslims is both an insult to Islam and an outcome that Western Imperialists are more than happy to have. The narrative where the destruction of their homeland is paired with the abuse of Muslims across the western world. The narrative where only ISIS truly cares about their life and spiritual well being and the bombings clearly demonstrate this. It's their narrative, it's clearly laid out in their magazine and the majority consensus, on both sides, is that they're continuing with this narrative because it works. Why do you think it doesn't?
You're right - it's complicated and difficult. So let's not do something basic and crude?
This really is the crux of the issue. Is there a place in this conflict for the use of well planned and even better informed precise tactical airstrikes on defined military targets with a fully risk assessed analysis of the impact on non-combative people and facilities to bring that as close to zero as possible? Probably, and that there is the very difficult decision to make. Bomb Syria: yes or no? Is not that thing though.
It's easy though. You can reply the footage of the bombing and you can count a literal stack of dead bodies. Its tangible, it feels real, its something that you can be seen to have done. It's far harder to do something where you try to count who's still living because of what you've done, particularly where some people won't want to believe you.
You are reading a single comment by @William. and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
hoefla
The_Seldom_Killer
@William.
The war in Iraq is a bad analogy for the war against ISIS. The war against Hitler is possibly also an inadequate analogy, but helpful to understand the thinking of those who want to extend the bombing. Many blame the rise of fascism in Germany on the Allies treatment of Germany after WWI: they had territory confiscated, were banned from raising an army, and were economicaly destroyed. This created an athmosphere in which a violent, nationalistic cult could easily be stirred up.
Perhaps it was wrong of the Allies, britain in particular, to destroy Germany the way it did after WWI, and they were to blame in a sense for the second war. That is not an argument for allowing the nationalist, expansionist, racist, genocidal group that followed a free rein to destroy Europe.
I personally do not think Bombing ISIS will make them more of a threat to us as a recruiting tool etc. However I don't believe it will solve anything long term either. It is possible we can co-ordinate with syrian troops on the ground, but unlikely. I don't know enough to judge that issue, which I think is what the decision hangs on.