To bomb ISIS in Syria or not?

 That is the question and its a situation we shouldn't walk into lightly.

What stomach will British people have for watching our own troops or Airforce burned alive or beheaded?

Is there another way?

How long would ISIS last with out its rich backers and oil?

This is a situation that transcends political views and whilst there are the normal comments saying that Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to security again. It could be that David Cameron is the threat to security, if he doesnt get this right.  Actually its more if we dont get this right because of the countries involved this could be more than just taking on a Terrorist group.  There is nothing wrong with Corbyn saying, "I do not believe that the Prime Minister made a convincing case that British air strikes on Syria would strengthen our national security or reduce the threat from ISIS". What would be more worrying is someone who would blindly follow a call for military action without considering the consequences.

Corbyn has sent out emails to the whole of the Labour membership to ask their opinions. I know this because I'm a Labour party member. He's not done this because he is weak, democracy is not weak, it brings great strength. Leaders are there to guide and inform, one person or small group of people should not make the decision on military intervention or war. We know what Corbyn's stance is on Syria at present, but he's a good enough leader to ask and take note of others opinions. Gradually we will get all the information needed to ensure that we don't get into a monumental abyss.

According to David Cameron there is 'Clear Legal Basis' To Bomb I.S.

But is there?

It was very noticeable that David Cameron had dropped his normal belittling, mudslinging persona for something much more reasonable. Is this just to gain support or a genuine change?

Obviously we are not party to the same information that politicians have but having examined the arguments available and looked at lots of information from various sources, my personal opinion is....

1. I Agree that ISIS needs to be eradicated.
2. Don't agree that bombing will achieve that, therefore I'm against Bombing at present, unless 3, 4 are in place.
3. A viable local ground force is available. Not coalition. ISIS cant be beaten by air alone.
4. A Plan to deal with ISIS very rich funders is in place (to stop ISIS re-spawning) and working at the same time as military action.
5. Bombing will increase the threat level in the UK which isnt at its highest as the PM incorrectly claimed. Current threat level is severe and not critical. Critical is the highest level. MPs and the public need to be aware of this.

I will be sending the above back in reply to Jeremy Corbyn.

The Arguments FOR

1. We need to stop ISIS as they are a threat to our security.
2. We shouldn't let our friends ie France and US act alone. (Both France and the US supported the UK during the Falklands War)
3. Action will only be against ISIS and not against other forces.
4. We are already at the highest security risk. (Actually thats incorrect)
5. UN Resolution 2249 backs Military action.
6. UN Resolution 2249 "The Security Council determined today that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Sham (ISIL/ISIS) constituted an “unprecedented” threat to international peace and security, calling upon Member States with the requisite capacity to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress its terrorist acts on territory under its control in Syria and Iraq."
7. UN Resolution 2249 "Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria"

The Arguments AGAINST

1. History shows its easy to get into these conflicts and very difficult to get out.
2. Fear makes people do stupid things.
3. No coherent strategy for what happens if ISIS is defeated.
4. No strategy for dealing with ISIS backers, so ISIS will just re-spawn.
5. Very risky area with Russia involved.
6. The PM claimed our threat level was at its highest. Its actually not, its currently at Severe, one less than the maximum of Critical. [Current Threat Level]
7. Even if our security level was at its highest, doesn't mean that the risk of attack wont increase, or get worse.
8. ISIS actually want us dropping bombs on them as it gains them support.
9. ISIS want troops on ground as it fulfils their prophecy of Armageddon battle in Syria.
10. Will increase the risk of more Muslims getting radicalised.
11. ISIS will use civilians to hide meaning more civilians killed.
12. More refugees will head towards Europe which is what ISIS want as it destabilises the countries that take them.
13. There are around 100 different factions involved on the ground in Syria getting any agreement or organising these will be impossible.
14. The biggest military force in the world the US has been bombing ISIS for 17 months now and we are expected to believe our 7 tornado jets are going to make all the difference?
15. Syria is extremely complex area we should not be meddling in area's that we pretend to understand but dont.
16. So far, we have pretty strong proof that the air war has been a failure—after more than 10,000 allied sorties, ISIS still controls much the same territory.
17. In conflict never give someone what they want. ISIS want us to attack them.
18. Russia strongly supports Assad
     

QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERING

1. This cannot be won by air assault alone so will require ground troops?
2. How do we know that the 70,000 Syrian fighters will take back and hold area's that ISIS leave?
3. If the Syrian fighters are not effective. Will UK ground troops be deployed?
4. How many ground troops will be deployed?
5. Will all UN countries deploy troops?
6. What will happen if any of our troops/air force are captured and beheaded/burned alive etc?
7. Will attacks be co-ordinated with Russia to avoid any possible mishaps?
8. Is Turkey trading with ISIS?
9. UN Resolution 2249 "Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law.  "In compliance with international law." is a handy little get out clause there and begs the question. Is it in compliance with international law to bomb another country if that country hasn't actually attacked you?. 
10. Have any lawyers confirmed that this would be in compliance with international law. 
11. Does Assad use ISIS for his own agenda?
12. Russia backs Assad so is Russia really attacking ISIS?

 

Links to information sources

1. Security Council ‘Unequivocally’ Condemns ISIL Terrorist Attacks, Unanimously Adopting Text that Determines Extremist Group Poses ‘Unprecedented’ Threat
2. MPs debate Syria air strikes
3. Jeremy Corbyn WON'T back bombing Syria he tells Labour MPs throwing shadow cabinet into turmoil
4. Dennis Skinner warns against military intervention in Syria's 'crazy war'
5. Peter Hitchens On Cameron’s ‘Delusional ‘Case For War
6. I know Isis fighters. Western bombs falling on Raqqa will fill them with joy
7. PM's Plan To Fight IS: Fantasy, Not Strategy
8. Iraq inquiry: Ex-MI5 boss says war raised terror threat
9. ISIS survives largely because Turkey allows it to: the evidence
10. Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President
11. Is Turkey collaborating with the Islamic State (ISIS)?
12. Why the British Brimstone missile is the most sophisticated of its kind - in 60 seconds
13. Cameron’s drive to bomb Syria is macho, foolish and must be stopped
14. David Cameron's plan to bomb ISIS is based on "fantasy"
15. Isis: Majority of British people do not support air strikes against Syria
16. Tom Watson piles pressure on Jeremy Corbyn after backing British air strikes on Isis in Syria
17. Cameron’s drive to bomb Syria is macho, foolish and must be stopped
18. Syria air strikes: Government ministers call Labour MPs for support
19. Syria bombing: Where UK parties stand
20. Can British forces make a difference in Syria?
21. Viewpoint: West 'walking into abyss' on Syria
22. Trudeau to Obama: Canada to pull out of bombing campaign against ISIS
23. Australia to bomb ISIS in Syria: Why now?
24. The pretend war: why bombing Isil won't solve the problem
25. Bombing ISIS Will Not Work
26. Jeremy Corbyn Statement on Syria
27. MI5 UK Current Threat Level
28. Russia and France wreak revenge on ISIS: Putin orders his warships in Med to work with French Navy as jihadists in Syria are pummelled from the air 
29. The Guardian view on David Cameron’s Syria statement: a short but serious debate is required 
30. David Cameron's full statement calling for UK involvement in Syria air strikes
31. Bombing ISIS Isn't Enough. 6 Steps To Achieving A Diplomatic Solution In Syria
32. The Oil War Against ISIS: Why Bombs Won't Cut Off The Flow 
33. Why U.S. Efforts to Cut Off Islamic State's Funds Have Failed 
34. ISIS can only succeed if we overreact — so we shouldn’t 
35. Russia just handed ISIS a 'big win' in Syria's largest city
36. Erdogan denies Turkey buys oil from ISIL
37. Syria's Assad directly supporting ISIS
38. Who Benefits Most From Paris Attacks? Assad
39. Britain has a moral obligation to intervene militarily in Syria
40. Isis threat to UK 'will only increase' if UK starts air strikes in Syria
41. Cameron’s delusion in the Middle East is the threat to our national security, not Jeremy Corbyn
42. DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Mr Cameron hasn't yet made the case for bombing Syria
43. British Bombs Will Not Solve the Syrian Crisis
44. Cameron’s cunning plan for bombing Isis in Syria
45. Letter from British Syrian Community to David Cameron

For those of you not in the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyns email is below

Gary,

On Thursday David Cameron set out his case in the House of Commons for a UK bombing campaign in Syria.

We have all been horrified by the despicable attacks in Paris and are determined to see ISIS defeated.

The issue now is whether what the Prime Minister is proposing strengthens, or undermines, our national security.

I put a series of questions in response to the Prime Minister's statement, raising concerns about his case that are on the minds of many in the country. You can read my response here.

There could not be a more important matter than whether British forces are sent to war.

As early as next week, MPs could be asked to vote on extending UK bombing to Syria.

I do not believe that the Prime Minister made a convincing case that British air strikes on Syria would strengthen our national security or reduce the threat from ISIS.

When I was elected I said I wanted Labour to become a more inclusive and democratic party.

So I am writing to consult you on what you think Britain should do. Should Parliament vote to authorise the bombing of Syria?

Let me know your views, if you are able to, by the start of next week: 

Yours,

Jeremy Corbyn MP
Leader of the Labour Party