http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29305840.
Seems he wants to spill more British blood, he should stick to his US lecture tours.
Seems he wants to spill more British blood, he should stick to his US lecture tours.
Blair, peace envoy.
- Thread starter AAF
- Start date
On past record I would not trust Blair but I think in this case he has it about right. He's saying(at least that's what I understood) that the boots on the ground should come from Iraq, the Kurds and any other armies in the middle east before the west get dragged in. Western airpower can only degrade ISIS up to a certain point and then they'll have to flushed out of their strongholds by ground troops. It has to be said that some of the fighters in that area are big on enthusiasm but lacking in knowhow so it is inevitable that some of that will have to come from western nations but we have learnt from first Iraq and then Afghanistan that we need to proceed cautiously or it hands the rebels a recruiting opportunity.
IS would love Western boots on the ground so they could claim that the Christian Crusaders are back and call another Jihad.
One of their spokesman (according to the BBC news) is goading the US saying "is that the best you can do" ref. the airstrikes.
He also asked the US to keep supplying arms to their opponents as they'll just capture them and use them, much as they have with all the US supplied Iraqi army equipment.
Boots on the ground would just play into their hands.
One of their spokesman (according to the BBC news) is goading the US saying "is that the best you can do" ref. the airstrikes.
He also asked the US to keep supplying arms to their opponents as they'll just capture them and use them, much as they have with all the US supplied Iraqi army equipment.
Boots on the ground would just play into their hands.
Sorry, Fishhead, I didn't get that particular nuance at all. I understood his comments to be four square along the lines that UK plc may have to put UK boots on the ground if we wanted to see this threat neutralised. Shades of "that is the only way to do it, so what happened in 2003 was justifiable in the same way that it will be again in 2014/2015" The man is a disgrace
I only saw the BBC edit of the interview but he stated a couple of times that although there had to be boots on the ground at some point he didn't foresee that they would be predominantly western. I am as wary as anyone when listening to Blair but I accept he knows a good deal more than myself on Middle East matters and nothing he said rang untrue or misleading.
This is the part I don't understand about this latest incarnation of excitable mal-contents over in the sandpit.
There is an obvious attraction to picking up a weapon and fighting against an injustice, real or imagined. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so much strife in the world. This appeal crosses cultural, ethnic and educational boundaries. If making a living is so hard to achieve, take the "easy" route, load up you AK and blast away. How cathartic. And what a boost that you can use a religious or political justification for what you do. First rule of war - demonise the opposition.
The fact that this latest grouping managed to gain large swathes of territory so quickly when in conflict with what was supposed to be national armed forces is a subject for another thread and does not need recounted here, suffice to say, the legitimate authorities are out and a rag-tag bunch of murderous criminals is in. And as soon as they did, they massacred those who are not their brand of radical extermist or have forced them out to seek refuge elsewhere. Not that different from many other conflicts across the globe but their own particular methods and targeting does seem to more focussed and brutal.
So here is the bit I am struggling to understand. Once you have territory, you need to hold it. For that, you can't just do so with just an automatic rifle and a sharp blade - you need food supplies, water and sewerage services, schools, hospitals, roads maintenance, civic planning, police, prisons, justice system, power and communication utilities, tax collection, welfare provision . . . you know, all the things that an organised community requires to function.
Having terrorised the local population (unless those remaining are enthusiastic participants in what is going on, which I doubt) and expelled a section of what was the previous established community who no doubt contributed towards said civic settlement, how do they actually keep these towns functioning at even a basic level?
And why are we (the West) bombing them? Maybe we should resurrect the old warfare tactic of the siege. To be a "state", you need to co-operate and co-ordinate with those who live within and also beyond your borders or you simply will not prosper. If this Islamic State cannot and will not do so, then refuse to supply anything - cut the power supply, dam the water, no movement in or out. And then wait. In time, the internal insurrection will take care of the problem without necessarily risking lives of the besiegers in house to house operations. Or they attempt a mass break-out to escape and are dealt with in open ground.
Ahh, the good ol' days. Where have they gone . . . ?
[And yes, I have probably been reading too much Game of Thrones and Bernard Cornwell for my own good!]
There is an obvious attraction to picking up a weapon and fighting against an injustice, real or imagined. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be so much strife in the world. This appeal crosses cultural, ethnic and educational boundaries. If making a living is so hard to achieve, take the "easy" route, load up you AK and blast away. How cathartic. And what a boost that you can use a religious or political justification for what you do. First rule of war - demonise the opposition.
The fact that this latest grouping managed to gain large swathes of territory so quickly when in conflict with what was supposed to be national armed forces is a subject for another thread and does not need recounted here, suffice to say, the legitimate authorities are out and a rag-tag bunch of murderous criminals is in. And as soon as they did, they massacred those who are not their brand of radical extermist or have forced them out to seek refuge elsewhere. Not that different from many other conflicts across the globe but their own particular methods and targeting does seem to more focussed and brutal.
So here is the bit I am struggling to understand. Once you have territory, you need to hold it. For that, you can't just do so with just an automatic rifle and a sharp blade - you need food supplies, water and sewerage services, schools, hospitals, roads maintenance, civic planning, police, prisons, justice system, power and communication utilities, tax collection, welfare provision . . . you know, all the things that an organised community requires to function.
Having terrorised the local population (unless those remaining are enthusiastic participants in what is going on, which I doubt) and expelled a section of what was the previous established community who no doubt contributed towards said civic settlement, how do they actually keep these towns functioning at even a basic level?
And why are we (the West) bombing them? Maybe we should resurrect the old warfare tactic of the siege. To be a "state", you need to co-operate and co-ordinate with those who live within and also beyond your borders or you simply will not prosper. If this Islamic State cannot and will not do so, then refuse to supply anything - cut the power supply, dam the water, no movement in or out. And then wait. In time, the internal insurrection will take care of the problem without necessarily risking lives of the besiegers in house to house operations. Or they attempt a mass break-out to escape and are dealt with in open ground.
Ahh, the good ol' days. Where have they gone . . . ?
[And yes, I have probably been reading too much Game of Thrones and Bernard Cornwell for my own good!]
As much as I can't stand the guy does anyone really believe this is going to be solved from the air or from an A/T boat?
Its all very well and good saying let the local boots do the leg work, but does anyone really see that working out that well?
It seems we are being sucked in to a totally necessary war in the middle east, I can't see any other way in the long run.
Its all very well and good saying let the local boots do the leg work, but does anyone really see that working out that well?
It seems we are being sucked in to a totally necessary war in the middle east, I can't see any other way in the long run.
I suspect you've already identified the inconsistencies. A bit like the 7 Samurai/Magnificent 7: the bad buggers take over the nice people's town. So if you lay siege to the town, the bad buggers will starve. The nice people will starve before the not nice people do, of course. That will inspire the nice people to gang up on the nice people to gang up on and overthrow the nasty people? I don't really see that working out.
My view, for what it's worth, is use our clever stuff to help the natives achieve, on land, what they don't have the clever stuff to support. Regarding the rest of NATO/EU, they largely don't have shed loads of clever stuff but they do have trained blokes with the kit to competently conduct Land Ops.
My view, for what it's worth, is use our clever stuff to help the natives achieve, on land, what they don't have the clever stuff to support. Regarding the rest of NATO/EU, they largely don't have shed loads of clever stuff but they do have trained blokes with the kit to competently conduct Land Ops.
Last edited:
While my last post was a bit tongue-in-cheek (starving a population is a collective punishment which includes the innocent as well as the guilty and is simply not on), one thing I heard on the news this morning was that we are now bombing oil facilities so we cut off funds to this bunch of murderers.
Now I am genuinely puzzled. While I work in the Oil & Gas sector, I am not overly familiar with how it is traded but as a physical product, why is it not as a simple as just not buying it from them? That leaves the production infrastructure intact so when the "good guys" prevail and we return to what in that region simulates normal, they can resume sales and begin to repair their fractured economy.
Although Halliburton et al must be secretly rubbing their hands thinking of all the juicy rebuilding contracts that are coming their way. Just like last time. Mind you, it had to be occupied and declared a temporary 51st State for that to happen.
Now I am genuinely puzzled. While I work in the Oil & Gas sector, I am not overly familiar with how it is traded but as a physical product, why is it not as a simple as just not buying it from them? That leaves the production infrastructure intact so when the "good guys" prevail and we return to what in that region simulates normal, they can resume sales and begin to repair their fractured economy.
Although Halliburton et al must be secretly rubbing their hands thinking of all the juicy rebuilding contracts that are coming their way. Just like last time. Mind you, it had to be occupied and declared a temporary 51st State for that to happen.
Yes, hadn't considered that. That now adds a worrying dimension to it all, but it also reinforces just how inter-connected things are and how seemingly small conflicts can echo to global dimensions. The Chinese will not be overly pleased if we are cutting off a significant source of their energy supply.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sierra Leone makes Blair 'Chief of Peace' | Diamond Lil's | 6 | |
|
Are ships getting uglier and is it Cherie Blairs fault? | The Quarterdeck | 46 | |
| D | Jack Blairs | The Quarterdeck | 31 |
Similar threads
-
-
Are ships getting uglier and is it Cherie Blairs fault?
- Started by Not_a_boffin
- Replies: 46
-
