Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 10, 2015
Britain plans Syria strikes and push for transition of power
Downing Street is drawing up a new strategy for Syria that would involve limited military strikes against the “controlling brains” of the Islamic State and a renewed diplomatic push that could see Bashar al-Assad remain president for a transitional period of six months.
In a sign of No 10’s determination to avoid another Commons defeat on Syria, ministers are arguing that military action would be narrowly defined to remove a terrorist threat with the added benefit of strengthening Iraq’s democratically elected government.
David Cameron highlighted the government’s belief that the time is fast approaching for Britain to extend its airstrikes against Isis targets from Iraq into Syria when he said “hard military force” would be necessary.
The prime minister said he would seek parliamentary approval before escalating Britain’s involvement. He told MPs: “We have to be part of the international alliance that says we need an approach in Syria which will mean we have a government that can look after its people. Assad has to go, Isil has to go. Some of that will require not just spending money, not just aid, not just diplomacy but it will on occasion require hard military force.”
The government has faced intense scrutiny over its strategy in Syria after Cameron announced to MPs on Monday that an RAF Reaper drone had killed two British Isis jihadis last month. Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were killed on 21 August near Raqqa. Junaid Hussain, another Briton, was killed in a US airstrike on 24 August as part of a joint operation.
Downing Street said the strikes were designed to foil terror plots planned by Khan and Hussain and did not mark wider British involvement in coalition airstrikes against Isis targets in Syria, which would require parliamentary approval. Cameron said he was free to act without a vote in parliament in the event of such an emergency.
Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, made clear on Wednesday that the government would like to widen its involvement in the airstrikes over Syria. But the government is making clear that it has three clear goals designed to win support in a possible parliamentary vote, which will become more challenging if Jeremy Corbyn is elected Labour leader on Saturday.
The three goals are:
- Military – the defeat of Islamic State.
- Political – strengthening the Iraqi government.
- Diplomatic – helping to lead a new initiative in Syria, with the blessing of Russia and China, that would see the installation of a government of national unity. As a way of getting Assad’s two great patrons, Russia and Iran, on board, Britain and other western powers would agree to a transitional period of up to six months in which Assad would remain in office. But his security apparatus would be shut down.
Hammond repeatedly stressed to MPs on the Commons foreign affairs select committee that any planned British involvement in military action in Syria would be limited to disrupting Isis command and control in Raqqa. The aim would not be to change the balance of power in the deadlocked four-year civil war, the government’s purpose when it last asked parliament to endorse military action.
He said there was no intention for Britain to get “involved in complex three-way fights in north-west Syria where regime forces and other forces are involved. What we are looking at are Isil command and control nodes around Raqqa from which it has supply lines running north. We are unable to attack those command and control nodes and supply lines. The military logic drives us to believe there could be utility to have greater freedom.”
The foreign secretary added: “The objective is to defeat Isil and that means we have to get to the controlling brains. At the moment we are attacking an enemy in Iraq and if we formed the judgment that this air-based campaign was more efficacious if we attacked Isil in Syria, we would ask parliament.
“The logic of extending our mandate to cover Isil targets in Syria would be very clearly a logic in support of the mandate we have in Iraq for the collective defence of that country.”
On the diplomatic front, Hammond said Britain was prepared to be “pragmatic” in discussing a transitional plan lasting months for Assad’s removal. “We are not saying Assad and all his cronies have to go on day one,” he said.
The foreign secretary said there was no sign at present that either Iran or Russia was prepared to abandon Assad, but argued there was no military solution that would lead to victory either for Assad or his opponents.
He said Britain and its allies would not accept any plan that would entrench Assad’s position in power. “The international community cannot, in my view, facilitate and oversee a set of elections in which somebody guilty of crimes on the scale that Assad has committed is able to run for office. That has to be clear. He cannot be part of Syria’s future.”
Cameron faced pressure from Harriet Harman, the acting Labour leader, to put a figure on the number of people Britain was prepared to take from refugee camps in countries neighbouring Syria. The prime minister indicated to MPs that the government was keen to accelerate the process.
On Friday the home secretary, Theresa May, and the communities secretary, Greg Clark, will chair the first meeting of a new committee to oversee the admission of refugees.
Cameron told Harman in the Commons: “It is one thing to give a commitment to a number, whether it is the 20,000 that I think is right or something else. It is another thing to make sure that we can find these people, get them here and give them a warm welcome. I hope that the whole country can now come together in making sure that we deliver this effort properly.”
The prime minister has said the government will place a particular emphasis on admitting orphaned children. But he indicated that the government would limit the number of children in two other categories.
Britain will refrain from admitting unaccompanied children from Syria’s neighbouring camps to avoid trafficking and to stop parents from later using their children to settle in the UK. Cameron also indicated that Britain would not accept refugee children who had already made it to Europe.
He told MPs: “We will go on listening to Save the Children, which has done excellent work. A number of other expert organisations warn about the dangers of taking children further from their parents. The overall point I would make is that those who have already arrived in Europe are at least safe. If we can help the ones in the refugee camps – the ones in Lebanon and Jordan – it will discourage more people from making the perilous journey.”
Gordon Brown has said in an article written for the Guardian that all countries accepting refugees should place a particular emphasis on helping children. The former prime minister writes: “Eglantyne Jebb, who started Save the Children to help child refugees in the wake of the first world war, said the only international language the world understands is the cry of a child. But from her own experience of visiting neglected orphans, the author JK Rowling feared that ‘no one is easier to silence than a child’. In the next few weeks we will find out whether optimism will win through and whether the voices of millions of children will finally be heard.”
17 Comments on "Britain plans Syria strikes and push for transition of power"
Makati1 on Thu, 10th Sep 2015 8:38 pm
Stupidity in the UK matches that in the US…
Rodster on Thu, 10th Sep 2015 8:51 pm
“Stupidity in the UK matches that in the US…”
Correction, the Brits were in on the same game from day one. No one in the “Pressititute Media” mentions that the migration crisis was the result of the USSA and it’s Vassels the EU wanting to destabilize Syria just like they did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen. The Evil Empire strikes again with its demonic minions.
No wonder the USSA was voted the #1 threat to world peace. The USSA has become a terrorist State.
apneaman on Thu, 10th Sep 2015 8:54 pm
Mak, it would not surprise me one bit if the UK is the first G-7 country to collapse.
European Refugee Crisis – The Anatomy of a Coverup
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=240&v=CeE4Ux4t9Vw
Boat on Thu, 10th Sep 2015 9:30 pm
All countries should end immigration. Immigration will only add to the worlds population. All leaders around the world should develop tax strategies designed to slow population growth. How about free education for families that are willing to serve their country and wait to have kids till after 30. 8 years of service sounds good. Btw being single should be a tax advantage. Rather than now where single citizens in the US help pay for child related expenses. Couples with children should pay their own way. Sustainability is the key word here.
Truth Has A Liveral Bias on Thu, 10th Sep 2015 11:59 pm
Air strikes won’t do shit. The USA achieves nothing with air strikes and now the UK will join them.
Picking out targets on the ground from 5000 to 10000 feet in a fighter jet flying as slowly as possible is a waste of jet fuel.
The only way to hold ground and destroy enemies is with infantry. And rivers of blood. Blood from both sides. Nobody is signing up for that waste of treasure so Cameron and the rest will pretend to fight a war and send jets out to fly around doing fuck all.
Makati1 on Fri, 11th Sep 2015 12:07 am
Apneaman, yep!
“Teenager wearing hijab knocked unconscious demonstrates rise in hate crime in London”
“North Sea loses 5,500 jobs in oil market downturn – regulator”
“Government has ‘scrapped’ plans to restore weekly rubbish collections”
“Cancer’s High Cost: Patients And Drug Companies Revolt After UK Axes Coverage Of Cancer Treatments”
“British Navy Admits “It Was Us, Not The Russians” That Damaged Irish Trawler In April”
“Major delays for rail travellers after ‘cable theft’ on one of Britain’s busiest lines”
“Electricity network in ‘uncharted territory’ as blackouts loom”
http://ricefarmer.blogspot.fr/
And then:
“Britain’s Extra Judicial Assassinations Bring Democracy Into Question”
“Shades of Chamberlain’s 1938 Munich Agreement as Cameron Welcomes Netanyahu to Britain”
“Cameron’s Refugee Gesture: Dancing Before The Image of Death”
“The “Collateral Damage” of US-NATO Wars: Europe’s Refugee Crisis, Depraved Morality of UK Prime Minister David Cameron”
“Britain’s Neoliberal Farce: The Working Poor, the Massacre of the Middle Class”
At: http://globalresearch.ca/
Who will fall first? The US or the UK or will it be a mutual suicide? We shall see.
GregT on Fri, 11th Sep 2015 12:15 am
“Cameron and the rest will pretend to fight a war and send jets out to fly around doing fuck all.”
Not doing “fuck all” Bias. War is good for the economy, and it raises GDP.
apneaman on Fri, 11th Sep 2015 12:33 am
Boat said
“All leaders around the world should develop tax strategies designed to slow population growth.”
then he said, I don’t understand how Capitalism works, but he does. Sure boat there is nothing a captain of industry hates more then cheap plentiful labour. Especially not foreign labour that will do your job for less wages, benefits and very little safety regs. Yep, no one understands how Capitalism works clearer than U Boat.
BobInget on Fri, 11th Sep 2015 11:59 am
When the US and UK got on board KSA’s Yemen criminal slaughter, what could be more transparent?
How much more ‘tell’ does a person need?
UK’s shadow government when Labour or Tories are in power are BP BOD’s
In America, Exxon leads the way on ME foreign policy. VP Cheney was just fronting for important, imported ME crude.
Today, it’s an Illinois pol who needs to keep seven balls in the air and smile doing it.
(seven balls= seven wars with US participation)
How’s that been working out of late?
The only reason UK and US and Russia are back in Syria has to be pressure from ISIL.
IS MEN believe themselves indestructible.
Worse then that, immortal.
IS success on ground can be judged by the recent flood of refugees. Syria’s proxy war has been ongoing five years. Only now are we seeing millions fleeing Iraq and Syria.
I strongly believe Saudi led bombing of Yemen to be yet another ‘tell’. Now that IS and al Qaeda have the upper hand in Yemen,
it’s an entirely new ‘ballgame’.
Two major so called ‘terrorist’ armies are knocking at Islam’s back door.
That’s the next UK and US challenge.
Defend Saudi Arabia or not?
rockman on Fri, 11th Sep 2015 12:19 pm
Truth – So true. Once again a bunch of old white men that have ever taken fire pretend they know how to fight a war. We’ll see if they can turn Syria into another Libya. Often war appears easier to manage then peace.
Winning the peace is an easy concept: kill every mother f*cker opposing you and suppress anyone that might be tempted to join their ranks. A bloody awful process for sure but that’s how every successful war has ever been fought.
BobInget on Fri, 11th Sep 2015 12:39 pm
Rockman,
There is almost no Syria remaining.
The devastation there is unimaginable.
Additional air power won’t help as every ‘rich target’ has already been destroyed.
Libya OTOH is still largely still intact all be it with two governments and many warlords
seeking power.
One UN official remarked on the BBC: “Yemen looks like Syria after five years of war”
WE can only guess how many of the two million Yemeni internally displaced refugees survive winter. No food. No water. No shelter. No medical, too black to matter.
That the US and UK were willing to sponsor
Yemeni genocide, says volumes about peak oil.
Davy on Fri, 11th Sep 2015 12:54 pm
Not true Bob, you maintain air power assets so ISIL does not go conventional again like they tried to do in Kobani and took a lickin.
BobInget on Fri, 11th Sep 2015 2:45 pm
Davy,
I never advocated stopping bombing IS.
It’s doubtful bombing alone will stop crazies. Sure it helps, but, is bombardment a long term policy? It certainly hasn’t worked
in Syria. Unless you call emptying success.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
Albert Einstein
Davy on Fri, 11th Sep 2015 2:53 pm
That is not my point Bob. My point was only objective military strategy. An air power asset will constrain ISIL from going conventional. Large movement of men and logistics on open highways in the desert is not wise with a strong air power asset present.
This war and region is too crazy to describe or take sides on. This is what happens when a global system starts to fly apart ie dysfunction, irrational, and paradoxes.
An opponent like ISIL can not be defeated except by total elimination of winning hearts and minds neither is possible in that region. The death of the region is in the cards though. The ME has no future per post globalism and abrupt climate change both in the cards.
GregT on Fri, 11th Sep 2015 5:58 pm
“An opponent like ISIL can not be defeated except by total elimination of winning hearts and minds neither is possible in that region.”
ISIL was born of the death and destruction rained down by the US led coalition supposedly looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Some 900,000 people brutally slaughtered, and still counting. It was obvious that the only thing stopping Iraq from erupting into sectarian violence was a brutal dictator. “Mission accomplished.”
The only hope of removing IS from Syria is to support Assad’s troops on the ground, but of course this was never the intention to begin with. As it was once again, the US that armed and trained IS in Syria.
The Middle East has been systematically destabilized, and turned into a horrific bloodbath. One more nation left to go, Iran. Then the mission will be complete. One small problem though, this time DC will have to go through Russia and China. The world has had enough of this shit.
Boat on Fri, 11th Sep 2015 6:36 pm
No
GregT,
After WWII the US said enough of this shyt. And Greg, how do you know the Saudis won’t take on Iran. They are natural enemies.
GregT on Fri, 11th Sep 2015 8:17 pm
Boat,
Another ‘merican that believes that the US won world war 2. Not a freaking clue. The Saudis would be crushed by Iran, who are you kidding?
Keep drinking the koolaid for long enough Boat, and WW3 will be fought in your backyard.