You could see this coming. With British tourists killed by a Tunisian terrorist trained in “free” Libya , the solution advocated would be to look again at bombing Syria – as Michael Fallon, the defence secretary is now suggesting. Isis, we were told by the prime minister on Tuesday, has joined Napoleon, Hitler and the late Soviet Union as “an existential threat”. Many readers will remember that a highly efficient, well-trained group supported by radicals in several nations including indeed mainly the US, killed 20 times more British citizens than Isis and al-Qaida combined. Yet no one who lived in those times can recall the IRA being regarded as undermining our very existence.

Still, surely air strikes by a militarily emaciated post-colonial power might accomplish something in turning back this “threat”. The formidable force currently in the region – and unlikely to be reinforced significantly – consists of half a dozen obsolete RAF Tornadoes and a few drones redeployed from killing armed peasants in Central Asia. What then will the military prowess of the Royal Air Force accomplish? Fortunately, we already know.

According to what appear to be the latest Ministry of Defence reports, in May the might of the Royal Air Force destroyed four Isis machine-gun positions, some bulldozers and two “vehicles” (one of them “large” the other probably a Toyota Hilux with a gun on the back). Three “buildings” were also reduced to rubble. As Crispin Blunt has rightly said this morning, our contribution achieves very little, and will continue to achieve little.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/02/syria-isis-michael-fallon-military-action

The fighters of the syrian army? Will they join ISIS?
The anti-Assad rebels? Will they join the very ISIS that is trying to kill them?
The other extremist groups like Al-Nusra? Will they join ISIS? Because ISIS not only has the image, the power and the money, they also have a bombing-campaign targeted at them.
This is a multi-front war. Everybody vs everybody.



I see the bombing of the bulldozers as the biggest achievement here. Why?
Because ISIS has no industry. It has little gas, little electricity and little water. It has little specialists, like doctors.
ISIS cannot replace losses of equipment by building new equipment: Everything has to be bought and imported.

This is no tactical bombing-campaign against a country. This is a war of attrition against a guerilla-army that occupies villages. You have to go for their supplies.



There is a sizable number of rebels in ISIS-territory that secretly document its crimes with smartphones as evidence to be used in some kind of future war-crime trial.
These rebels could supply the militaries with locations of important ISIS-buildings in the occupied towns.

---

Rather more importantly, war being a political act, aside from reducing SUVs to their component parts, what exactly is this new element in our mission to stabilise the Middle East supposed to achieve, and how? In other words, what is the strategy? Some of the retired officers who now, astonishingly, advocate “boots on the ground” rightly warned two years ago of “unintended consequences”.

As well they might. For the current conflict environment consists of heavily engaged combatants from Iraq, Iran, the Syrian government, the “moderate” Syrian rebels (many of them formerly known as al-Qaida), what is left of the Free Syrian Army, Isis, at least two Kurdish armies and Lebanese Hezbollah. We might also include genuinely interested parties such as our stalwart Nato ally Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Israel pitches in occasionally as well, usually against Hezbollah. Then there are the less genuinely interested parties such as ourselves.

One might hope that our generals and politicians might have learned from their recent spectacularly disastrous interventions that inserting one’s metaphorical hand into such a strategic hornet’s nest and hoping for a friendly hornet might be a fool’s errand. One might hope that the quagmire of Afghanistan and the Iraq fiasco might encourage the view that before engaging in battle, one might understand that war is indeed a political act which requires a political end state to which your military force is actively contributing.

Our leaders might consider that the solution to the Iraq-Syria war will only come when we deal with some unwelcome political realities; that Iran is a key player is obvious but unacknowledged; similarly Russia stands to lose far more from Isis success than the UK; have these countries been consulted? Are they involved in these piecemeal and counterproductive operations? Has anyone spoken to the Syrian government about our bombers invading their airspace? Because if they succeed in shooting down one of our aircraft, it is highly unlikely that surviving aircrew will be well treated. Dozens of other questions remain; none of them asked, let alone answered.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/02/syria-isis-michael-fallon-military-action

The United States has blocked attempts by its Middle East allies to fly heavy weapons directly to the Kurds fighting Islamic State jihadists in Iraq, The Telegraph has learnt.

Some of America’s closest allies say President Barack Obama and other Western leaders, including David Cameron, are failing to show strategic leadership over the world’s gravest security crisis for decades.

They now say they are willing to “go it alone” in supplying heavy weapons to the Kurds, even if means defying the Iraqi authorities and their American backers, who demand all weapons be channelled through Baghdad.

High level officials from Gulf and other states have told this newspaper that all attempts to persuade Mr Obama of the need to arm the Kurds directly as part of more vigorous plans to take on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) have failed. The Senate voted down one attempt by supporters of the Kurdish cause last month.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11712237/US-blocks-attempts-by-Arab-allies-to-fly-heavy-weapons-directly-to-Kurds-to-fight-Islamic-State.html

Is our strategy is to let the region handle itself? I think there was a post here that Russia was going to be sending arms to Syria. And, now we have Fallon pushing for GB taking on air strikes against ISIS in Libya--independent of the U.S. Hezbollah has taken back a strategic area from ISIS control where Iranian arm's supplies had been coming across the border and then there's Turkey dealing with that buffer zone in dispute with the Kurds where arms for ISIS and the other splinter groups were managing to slip through.

Is our denying the Kurds better weapons wise...or is that some deal we made with Turkey for something else?


----------

The Peshmerga have been successfully fighting Isil, driving them back from the gates of Erbil and, with the support of Kurds from neighbouring Syria, re-establishing control over parts of Iraq’s north-west.

But they are doing so with a makeshift armoury. Millions of pounds-worth of weapons have been bought by a number of European countries to arm the Kurds, but American commanders, who are overseeing all military operations against Isil, are blocking the arms transfers.

One of the core complaints of the Kurds is that the Iraqi army has abandoned so many weapons in the face of Isil attack, the Peshmerga are fighting modern American weaponry with out-of-date Soviet equipment.

At least one Arab state is understood to be considering arming the Peshmerga directly, despite US opposition.

The US has also infuriated its allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf states, by what they perceive to be a lack of clear purpose and vacillation in how they conduct the bombing campaign. Other members of the coalition say they have identified clear Isil targets but then been blocked by US veto from firing at them.

There are lots of people who don't want the Kurds better armed. So It's not necessarily just Turkey.

But they are losing the argument, the don't arm the Kurds people, because a.) the Kurds are highly motivated, experienced, and effective; and b.) the Kurds have money, oil money; and c.) ISIS looks like a bigger and more immediate threat, because it is, the Kurds are not aggressive, ISIS wants to rule the world.

This is part of Assad's plan now, I think, "OK, you want ISIS, here's ISIS, you fight them."