[Closed] Tony Blair's Advice On How To Tackle Islamic State

Let's fight IS but doing what caused them in the first place. like it, makes perfect sense. That'll never lead to an esculation and more people joining that particular cause, can't see that coming at all.

We should do want didn't work last time. Brilliant.

Slightly lazy conclusions being drawn here as to why Iraq didn't work.

It didn't work because we disbanded the Army and the Baathist party and failed to get the funding and political support for staying there for another decade.

Watched a bit of his speach earlier on the BeeB and it was a very badly scripted narrative at best.

I still find having him in place a very odd situation..

The interview I heard he said that for military reasons airstrikes might not be enough, and if the Iraqis and Syrians prove unable to deal with them on tbe ground, then we shouldn't rule out going in again ourselves.

I hate him, but in the interview I heard he did not say we should be sending troops in, just that we shouldn't rule it out in case we have to. Which from a dispassionate military perspective, I can see the logic of.

If Iraq was left to its own devices many years ago, im sure saddams troops would have no problem fending off IS, if IS would even be in existance

Saddam wouldn't have been immune to IS and I'm actually of the opinion that IS would still exist.

IS still aren't much worse (if at all) for murder and genocide than Saddam was, people seem to be forgetting that. He was a shitbag that killed untold millions in campaigns of war and genocide.

"Unless you're prepared to fight these people on the ground, you may contain them but you won't defeat them."

IS wouldn't have stood a chance against Saddam. His army was only crushed by a sustained air bombardment. These guys were battle hardened from years of fighting.

Slightly lazy conclusions being drawn here as to why Iraq didn't work.

It didn't work because we disbanded the Army and the Baathist party and failed to get the funding and political support for staying there for another decade.

This.

The military operation itself was a complete success.

IS wouldn't have stood a chance against Saddam. His army was only crushed by a sustained air bombardment. These guys were battle hardened from years of fighting.

So are many of Iraq's current security forces and let's not forget that the Syrian military is full of hardened bastards as well. If Saddam was still around the Arab Spring would have spread to Iraq, with the Kurds leading any insurrection. Saddam was truly hated by most of his country.

Saddam was a shitbag, but he killed thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.
That was left to us and the Americans.
And we armed Saddam, don't forget.

Iraq was a secular state, with the best infrastructure in the ME, until the was of 93. It's in a worse position now than it was then.

Saddam was a shitbag, but he killed thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.

HAHAHAH! That is completely wrong.

Saddam literally killed millions.

So are many of Iraq's current security forces and let's not forget that the Syrian military is full of hardened bastards as well.

The current Iraqi army don't have the incentive of torture and death to spur them on though and IS are probably picking up as many volunteers as casualties as they go.

These guys were battle hardened from years of fighting.

Thank you Tony that was a very useful contribution to the debate. We'll certainly bear it in mind. Yep i'm sure youve got lots of other great ideas too. Ok bye now Tony, you run along, see you later. Bye.

The current Iraqi army don't have the incentive of torture and death to spur them on though and IS are probably picking up as many volunteers as casualties as they go.

Doesn't tend to motivate troops as you can see in Syria. Saddam would have possibly fallen during the Arab spring, ISIS would have moved in whilst the Kurds, Sunni's and Shias were busy blindly killing each other.

Not conforming to the rules of war is not some silver bullet, it's how motivated you are to put your life on the line. Currently ISIS are far, far more motivated to do so than either the Syrian or Iraqi army.

"no discpiline"

Apparently their CofC is quite effective, which is why they are quite effective.

The region is plagued by successive waves of self-inflicted barbarism, because by-and-large the people and politics of the region is of a mindset similar to our un-enlightened European ancestors. Political, social and religious enlightenment in Europe was a long time coming. And it will be a long time coming to the Middle-East too.

Apparently their CofC is quite effective, which is why they are quite effective.

Slightly lazy conclusions being drawn here as to why Iraq didn't work.

Pur-lease. We and the US created the conditions for ISIS to exist, just as we created the conditions for Al-qaeda to exist.

I think we should give him a gun and let him go...

The best way to tackle extremism is to kill more people, obviously.

I don't think Saddam's regime would have been immune to the "Arab Spring" so may well have been in a similar state to Syria is now had the western powers not invaded.

Thank you Tony that was a very useful contribution to the debate. We'll certainly bear it in mind. Yep i'm sure youve got lots of other great ideas too. Ok bye now Tony, you run along, see you later. Bye.

Nobody seems to have an effective method for COIN ops within legal frameworks as far as I can tell so until ISIS pull on some dessies and forms up; Tonys idea is a bit crap.

we cannot keep using force against ideas and forces that hide within the civilians, they run away when we turn up to hide in plain sight , conduct an insurgency and then takeover when we inevitable run out of money/will and/or body bags.

Furthermore only a loon would listen to that mans advice as to what to do in the middle east hence why he thinks it is important he say it

Is this part of a series? Gordon Browns guide to balancing budgets next? David Camerons guide to social mobility?

The Middle East Peace Envoy says 'more bombing'.

You couldn't make it up.

The military operation itself was a complete success

😯 😯 😯

[img] [/img]

[quote=binners said]Is this part of a series? Gordon Browns guide to balancing budgets next? David Camerons guide to social mobility?

Cleggs guide to sticking to your pledges
Goves guide to humility
AS - how to win friends and influence people
Balls guide to parking
Huhnes guide to ethics within a marriage
loads out there

[i]Find their funding streams; cut them off. Drone the command. This will be won by the intelligence services. Proper intelligence, preferebly different to the people who told you about the WMDs.[/i]

Good grief

You are aware no doubt that a substantial amt of ISIS funds are sales of oil, which were probably the end user of.

When Pres Carter decided that the Mid East was strategically important this was always always going to be end result. Brown and black people can die off in their millions it is irrelevant. As long as the oil continues to flow

Pur-lease. We and the US created the conditions for ISIS to exist, just as we created the conditions for Al-qaeda to exist.

I Love a bit of Tony. Did he start with "Now is not the time for soundbites; I am a grasping, Machiavellian cockwomble" ?

If not, I'm oot

ISIS is Al-qaeda - the Anglo American establishment changed the name because it was becoming an irrefutable thorn in their propaganda mandate that 'we've' been funding/supplying them - Or do folk think these Wuhabbists got all those Military Spec Toyotas from captured weapons caches? Ain't you seen the pictures of John 'insane' McCain chilling with known terrorists in Syria? Tony Blair saying putting ground troops on the ground is the answer is like saying 580mm is the optimum bar width for a downhill race in the Alps - David Kelly R.I.P ..

IMO stating that we helped create this mess isn't a reason we should stay out, we are one of only a handful of nations that have the ability and expertise to really make a difference. ISIS however they came about are truly abhorrent and should be removed using suitable tactics and applied force.

I'd doubt it will come to us sending conventional forces though and I wouldn't be surprised if the help the Iraqi army really needs isn't already there is small numbers to be expanded once things become official.

But if we have to send conventional troops back in I really hope they have a clear mission, are properly supported by the government and not hamstrung with tight RoE and half arrsed policy like they were in the COB at Basra Airport circa 2007.

Saddam wouldn't have been immune to IS and I'm actually of the opinion that IS would still exist.

Konabunny, If it wasn't IS it would be Al Nusra or a similar group. It's only an opinion of course, but Saddams lack of popularity and the poverty caused by sanctions would have seen to it that Iraq entered a state of civil war at some point. Most likely when Syria descended into civil war.

But you kind of back up my point, it wasn't military action that led to the rise of ISIS per se, it what we did during reconstruction and what the blindly incompetent Iraq government did afterwards.

I'll track down that podcast.

I think we're getting into the complexity of alternate histories here - I don't think Syria would be as great a clusterfuzzle if there hadn't been such a disaster in Iraq for the last decade.

I agree that a nondemocratic regime like Saddam's is inherently unstable, but I don't think that necessarily means there would have been a civil war, or that it would have been sectarian, or that it would have been framed as a crossborder war of Islamic fundamentalism.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the podcast I was talking about was "Losing Iraq", here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/frontline-audiocast-pbs/id336934080?mt=2 It's a little bit plodding but it gives a good insight into the decision to launch the "debaathification" decree and dissolve the military - both of which were terrible ideas.

As Peace Envoy for the Middle East, shouldn't Tony go and visit ISIS to have a chat?

We can only hope I guess.

Saddam was evil? He sure wasnt great but educated people with smiles in suits from across the Atlantic made sure that a place where classical concerts was played, all sects lived together became a vast pit of death. Arab countries needstrongmen. Some are nasty murderers like Saddam. Others rule at the head of a committee. Peace is kept by 'dont mess and your day to day will be smooth/good. Us Westerners cant grasp that with our McDonalds corrupt democracies.

Well said hora, that Ronald McDonald has a lot to answer for.

[img] [/img]

Sending troops into Afghanistan helped to destroy Al-Q as a fighting force. ISIS needs to be defeated on the ground.

Anybody who advocates boots on the ground is welcome to lead by example.

Starting with Tony.

IMO stating that we helped create this mess isn't a reason we should stay out, we are one of only a handful of nations that have the ability and expertise to really make a difference.

Yes, we can make a difference, but experience tells us it won't be a positive one.

Us Westerners cant grasp that with our McDonalds corrupt democracies.

If Assad is as evil as John Kerry used to say why hasn't his own people overthrown him? Why haven't all his army left or defected? Why was large Christian communities allowed to live and practice in Syria under his leadership? Western leaders will say hes probably oppressing but how? Still? In a civil war his 'people' are all united now aren't they.

John Kerry started off ranting and raving about Assad. I remember watching the interviews and thinking whoa this guy is seriously short-sighted to hold such a position (but then- look at George Bush jnr..).

Fast forward and he realises the FSA has good elements but it also has a strong religious leaning, that then defects to ISIS. The atrocities committed by the opposition are covered up and barrel bombs dropped from helicopters are highlighted as 'indiscriminate'.

When you fire even a machine gun- is that pin-point? A shell? A RPG? War is bloody murky stuff and not clean-cut black and white.

Ironically theres talk of getting into bed with Iran now. Another 'bad' place.

buzz-lightyear - Member

The region is plagued by successive waves of self-inflicted barbarism, because by-and-large the people and politics of the region is of a mindset similar to our un-enlightened European ancestors. Political, social and religious enlightenment in Europe was a long time coming. And it will be a long time coming to the Middle-East too.

I suppose you can argue that, if you ignore all external factors. Which are myriad.

jambalaya - Member

Sending troops into Afghanistan helped to destroy Al-Q as a fighting force. ISIS needs to be defeated on the ground.

Seriously fella? Afghanistan has been the singular largest waste of time, resources, and more importantly; lives in history. It achieved absolutely * all! Once we're gone, it'll immediately revert back to exactly the same medieval barbarism that was there before. We've achieved absolutely nothing!

Al Qaeda wasn't remotely effected by western action. It self destructed! It was the usual 'we're more islamic than you' factional nonsense. Which ultimately gave us ISIS. That went well then? Jihadist nutters are no repeaters of borders. They just move somewhere else. And in tandem with Afghanistan, we supplied the perfect place for them to move on to too. Genius! Yay for US foreign policy!!!

If Afghanistan and Iraq have sent a clear message to the west it isn't the one you're espousing. Its that we should stay the * out of other peoples civil wars, our involvement in the whole region has been an unmitigated disaster from start to finish, and we should let them get on with it, as if we get involved now, it'll only make things infinitely worse!

We should basically work on the principle that whatever Tony Blair said should be immediately discounted as patent nonsense, and we should do the exact opposite!

We did create a lot of the mess in the Middle East. We were party to the deals that saw all those nice, neat, straight international boundary lines. IIRC, it was Churchill himself who advocated gassing the Kurds, long before Saddam. So we certainly have some responsibility for the mess out there.

However, going into any negotiation, let alone a war, without a clear objective, is very misguided and more often than not, extremely dangerous.

What is the outcome we desire? And who do we feel is our enemy? Where does the line between "devout Islamic" and "anti-Western democracy and freedom"? These questions are at the heart of the conflict and we cannot hope to do anything other than get stuck in a repeat-Gulf-War loop unless we define the problems and tackle them effectively.

If Assad is as evil as John Kerry used to say why hasn't his own people overthrown him?

If Afghanistan and Iraq have sent a clear message to the west it isn't the one you're espousing. Its that we should stay the **** out of other peoples civil wars

Sending troops into Afghanistan helped to destroy Al-Q as a fighting force. ISIS needs to be defeated on the ground.

Are you saying this to create debate ?
If so good on you I look forward to reading what follows, if however you genuinely believe this and feel that the British government ought to commit troops and therefore British soldiers lives then I ask you one simple question.

Do you Mr Jambalaya feel that you are prepared to go and fight and would you commit your sons to go and fight ?

Personally I would not, I would not volunteer and I would resist conscription. Neither would I volunteer my son, because of this I do not feel it is appropriate or fair to say that we should commit our troops.

I do not know what the solutions are !
To be truthful I do not really care in as much as whatever we do will be immensely costly and the knock on effect to the country will only contribute to a further decline in what the government ought to be providing.

@binners, yes indeed I was serious. Iraq I think was a mistake and a terrible waste of lives. Afghanistan was reasonably effective, Al-Q was defeated both on the ground and organizationally and by cutting its funding off.

@cheeky, I said ISIS needs to be defeated on the ground but not by who. I think a special forces lead operation would be very effective and we all know the SAS and the US special forces are already there on the ground calling in the air strikes. As for the "would I go", its a bit academic as clearly I am not I would go in order to defeat ISIS (and as above Afghan yes, Iraq no) but soldiers don't get to choose. That's why the politicians must think very carefully about what we ask our troops to do.

@Jambalaya, as you said at the end it’s the politicians who make the decision as to where the troops are sent, this is the bit that grips my shit, there are no longer many politicians with any real military experience, military advice to politicians is given by people who are essentially looking towards where they themselves will end up as a consequence, there is very little regard as to the consequences of those doing the actual fighting, if ISIS are as bad as they are portrayed then woe betide any western soldiers captured by them !
Secondly why should we here on an Island off the NW coast of mainland Europe worry about a force with neither a Navy nor an Air force?
What threat do they pose to our Country; if the threat is that bad then surely we guard our borders!
If the response to ISIS is on humanitarian grounds then there are only two options
Total annihilation with a long standing commitment to western control off the region for a very long time, costing billions and ultimately ensuring the NHS and UK public services are decimated
Or
Jaw Jaw with the Bad Guys involving some serious concessions and ultimately the legitimatization of an (other) Islamic State in the region.
With regard to the Soldiers, there is a common belief by many people that soldiers, Sailors and Airmen are there out of some bizarre overriding patriotic duty to boldly go where they are told regardless of the consequences, the lie spread by politicians when they say that soldiers in Afghanistan have died fighting for their country has got to be the all-time biggest whopper of the century, they died fighting for the interests of the few!
Ps don’t believe all the Andy McNab shite, wars cannot be won by the SAS and pilots alone, if we were that good we would have nipped ISIS in the bud !

Why is it that when a 'Dictator is overthrown the net result is almost always a Islamic leaning/state/party?

@cheeky, I am not sure I agree that too many politicians make military decisions based upon their "promotion" prospects although the war in the South Atlantic certainly didn't do Mrs Thatcher any harm. I think we agree that the politicians should think very very carefully before sending troops into such situations.

I think we agree the SAS cannot defeat ISIS on their own, I don't think the Kurds can do it on their own and neither can the Iraqis as has been proven. Hence I agree with Blair, we should not rule out sending ground forces.

I also agree ISIS should have been nipped in the bud, I have read estimates of 500 UK citizens, 500 French and 700 Germans (most likely of Turkish descent) are fighting with ISIS. We have already had one French ex-ISIS fighter come back to Europe and kill 4 people (happened to be those visiting a Jewish museum in Belgium). ISIS is a problem for Europe, the latest video messages where trying to encourage attacks particularly in France. I think a reluctance to get involved post-Iraq has been seized upon by ISIS and it has allowed them to expand dramatically.

I think the fundamental problem is that we look at 'the region' in the arrogant terms of the borders that we arbitrarily drew when we carved it up. As ISIS are showing, they don't recognise these borders. And why should they? The whole region is divided along religious and tribal lines. Hence them having little time for our neat and tidy concept of democracy. If we can't even get our heads around that, then why are we trying to control the region? We're on a hiding to nothing right from the off!

So just let them get on with it. Its nothing to do with us! Lets be honest, look at Syria. All the possible outcomes are dire! So what the hell are we hoping to achieve? Erm.... we don't really know. Always an absolutely great premise for getting involved in a conflict!

And for those advocating military solutions - the likes if ISIS are so bold in their actions because the Wests apparent show of military might - shock and awe - has been exposed as anything but. Its just demonstrated in Iraq its limitations and weaknesses

Secondly why should we here on an Island off the NW coast of mainland Europe worry about a force with neither a Navy nor an Air force?

With regard to the Soldiers, there is a common belief by many people that soldiers, Sailors and Airmen are there out of some bizarre overriding patriotic duty to boldly go where they are told regardless of the consequences, the lie spread by politicians when they say that soldiers in Afghanistan have died fighting for their country has got to be the all-time biggest whopper of the century, they died fighting for the interests of the few!

Ps don’t believe all the Andy McNab shite, wars cannot be won by the SAS and pilots alone, if we were that good we would have nipped ISIS in the bud !

I am not sure I agree that too many politicians make military decisions based upon their "promotion" prospects, although the war in the South Atlantic certainly didn't do Mrs Thatcher any harm. I think we agree that the politicians should think very very carefully before sending troops into such situations.

Where I said military advice to politicians I was referring to the desk driving Generals/Admirals looking towards their retirement, book deals, seat in the lords prospects rather than politicians.
With regard to the Falklands conflict it was Admiral Henry Leach who had Maggies ear and convinced her that they could retake the islands, the effect of this did boost Thatcher, it also saved our Armed Forces at the time as they were about to be decimated by a Tory Government, something the Cameron regime is keen to re-enact I may add.
Camerons desire to involve UK forces in these situations whilst still looking to slash defence spending shows his absolute unsuitability to lead anything other than a posh boys boozing club.

In a civil war his 'people' are all united now aren't they.

Jam your views on conflicts, outcomes and the legitimacy of them is out of line with reality and morality.

You make Tony blairs views look grounded and realistic

The news has just said that parliament is likely to be recalled to discuss military involvement in Iraq.

Here we go again!

They didn't do too badly in GW2!

Yebbut that's just the same as winning at half-time. It counts for nothing.

JY funny how I seem to agree with politicians of all sides, the French (clearly left leaning) have initiated strikes before we have and the majority of military advisers and geopolitical commentators.

I think it's morally essential to defeat ISIS.

I think it's morally essential to defeat ISIS.

You can't defeat an ideology through military means. They will simply re-emerge in a slightly different form somewhere else in a few years time.

@ransos, plenty of examples of how you can defeat ideologies with respect to whether they pose a threat to you now or in the future.

ransos - Member
I think it's morally essential to defeat ISIS.
You can't defeat an ideology through military means. They will simply re-emerge in a slightly different form somewhere else in a few years time.

It would seem to me that, [b]on a long enough time line[/b], the answer is likely to be anything or anyone that is staunchly and uncompromisingly Islamist, intolerant and extreme. And [i]that[/i], is a lot of people and places.

@digga - we disagree with them slaughtering people be they Muslims, Christians or Yazidi's. ISIS primary objective is currently to free Muslims from the tyranny of democracy, they have already embarked on the next phase which is to ensure their form of Islam is the only religion acceptable within the areas they control.

JY IMO it would be immoral to stand by and "let ISIS get on with it"

jambalaya - Member
plenty of examples

Go on then.

@ransos, plenty of examples of how you can defeat ideologies with respect to whether they pose a threat to you now or in the future.

That's not defeating an ideology, and that is why attempts at neutralising threats through military means result in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.

We can start with the Nazis @lifer, in fact most facist regimes.

@ransos, someone can sit and espouse (I won't say preach as that's too specific) and ideolgy and claim they have not been defeated but if they can no longer threaten you IMO they have been defeated.

jambalaya - Member
@digga - we disagree with them slaughtering people be they Muslims, Christians or Yazidi's. ISIS primary objective is currently to free Muslims from the tyranny of democracy, they have already embarked on the next phase which is to ensure their form of Islam is the only religion acceptable within the areas they control.

JY IMO it would be immoral to stand by and "let ISIS get on with it"

In which case, what 'we', the West are 'against' is far broader.

Yep definitely no people around now espousing Nazi or Facist theology, especially in Europe...

Yep definitely no people around now espousing Nazi or Facist theology, especially in Europe

The nazis are incomparable with religious extremists IMHO. The nazis relied on a few staunch nutters and then severe oppression of the state. The Argentine Junta and many others were the same. The religious extremists prey on the beliefs of the people and so, as such are a more formidable adversary. I can see no end for this and it scares me for the future for my kids.

RaveyDavey - Member
The religious extremists prey on the beliefs of the people and so, as such are a more formidable adversary. I can see no end for this and it scares me for the future for my kids.

Yet another reason why military action will not defeat this ideology. It will only entrench it.

That's the politicians fault, not the military peeps. Who gives the politicians the power to make these decisions?

I never said it was the fault of the military peeps, the main comment from me was the propaganda regarding the pseudo patriotic drivel spoken by politicians when the inevitable casualties are announced. A vote does not give the Politicians a licence to do as they please.

I cynically referred to the Isis Navy and Air Force to expose the myth that we as a country are actually under threat.

But don't we also disagree with treating women like second class citizens -punishning rape victims, female genital mutliation, unequal education rights - and backward opinions on homosexuality?

In which case, what 'we', the West are 'against' is far broader.

Are you saying these are legitimate reasons for us to go to war ?

th smiles in suits from across the Atlantic made sure that a place where classical concerts was played, all sects lived together became a vast pit of death. Arab countries needstrongmen. Some are nasty murderers like Saddam. Others rule at the head of a committee. Peace is kept by 'dont mess and your day to day will be smooth/good. Us Westerners cant grasp that with our McDonalds corrupt democracies.

Seriously Hora, he wasn't just a nasty man who killed a few people. He presided over a wars that closely resembled the ferocity of World War 1, on top of that he carried out a campaign of genocide against the kurds and the targeted killing and torture of political opponents.

Yes you're right, as a westerner you can't grasp the fact that most Iraqi's hated the guy, you're coming up with a typically racist bien pensant western argument against the war, one that basically assumes Iraqi's are savages that can't handle democracy. Every Iraqi I know was happy that they had a chance of forming a democracy.

Whenever Hardline Islamic regimes have been established in the past, they've petty rapidly dissolved into a bloody, factional 'I'm more Islamic than you' competition, in a far-from-funny Judean Peoples Front/Peoples front of Judea parody. I doubt that this one will be any different. From the report in the Times the other week, after interviews with the British Jihadi's out there, it already is. So let them get on with it.

What politicians need to answer is

a) why do they pose a threat to us? (they don't!)
b) what do we hope to achieve by our involvement? (erm.....?)
c) how will our involvement bring these clearly stated aims about? (errrrrrrm.....?)

I doubt they can supply any satisfactory answers to any of these questions. But the Americans have clicked their fingers, so in we go. Again.

I think any British politician with any balls (can't think of any) or some intelligence (again... I'm struggling) would see that with the general cynicism and war-wearyness of the population after Blairs crusades, there are votes to be had in telling the Americans they're on their own this time

Fat chance!

We can start with the Nazis @lifer, in fact most facist regimes.

@ransos, someone can sit and espouse (I won't say preach as that's too specific) and ideolgy and claim they have not been defeated but if they can no longer threaten you IMO they have been defeated.

Except it doesn't work. US attempts to fight communism in SE Asia and China resulted in most of the region becoming communist. Fighting Islamic extremism in the middle east is resulting in more Islamic extremism. As I said, it's whack-a-mole.

Your nazi analogy is a poor one for a few reasons. First (as has been said) it relied on heavy oppression of the state by a limited number of individuals. Second, the Allies put as much effort into winning the peace as they did into winning the war. Compare and contrast with WW1 - which in time will surely be linked with WW2 as a single conflict. Third, they posed an imminent threat to us and our allies.

As binners notes, it's unclear what threat ISIS poses to us, it's unclear what we're hoping to achieve, and it's unclear that any actions we take will be effective.

cheekyboy - Member
But don't we also disagree with treating women like second class citizens -punishning rape victims, female genital mutliation, unequal education rights - and backward opinions on homosexuality?
In which case, what 'we', the West are 'against' is far broader.

Are you saying these are legitimate reasons for us to go to war ?

However, as others here point out, left to their own devices, hard-line Islamic nations have a tendency toward the same extremes. If we really object to any of this, we need to think about what, exactly, it is we object to, or otherwise stay the hell out.