This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2015/sep/08/targeting-british-jihadis-in-syria-does-not-amount-to-long-term-strategy

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Targeting British jihadis in Syria does not amount to long-term strategy Targeting British jihadis in Syria does not amount to long-term strategy
(about 3 hours later)
Reading the background history of Reyaad Khan, the British jihadi killed by an RAF drone strike in Syria, it’s not easy to feel any sympathy for him. Sympathy for his family in Cardiff, grieving for their son’s death and probably blaming themselves, yes, and for his bewildered friends.Reading the background history of Reyaad Khan, the British jihadi killed by an RAF drone strike in Syria, it’s not easy to feel any sympathy for him. Sympathy for his family in Cardiff, grieving for their son’s death and probably blaming themselves, yes, and for his bewildered friends.
But unease too about this strange form of asymmetrical military escalation and where it might lead us all. A £75,000 Hellfire missile may be cost-effective as a means of assassinating someone who meant his country harm, but it will not be cost-free. Nor is it quite a gallant Battle of Britain duel in the sky. But unease, too, about this strange form of asymmetrical military escalation and where it might lead us all. A £75,000 Hellfire missile may be cost-effective as a means of assassinating someone who meant his country harm, but it will not be cost-free. Nor is it quite a gallant Battle of Britain duel in the sky.
Khan, 21, and another UK jihadi, Ruhul Amin, 26, sound like pretty normal sort of young men trying to make sense of their lives (football, girlfriends, clubbing) before making their fatal turn towards the illusory security of religious fundamentalism, which promised them riches in the next life (“Allah will give you back 700 times more”) in return for sacrificing this one. So much for Khan’s brief notion of becoming Britain’s “first Asian PM”. Khan, 21, and another UK jihadi, Ruhul Amin, 26, sound like pretty normal young men trying to make sense of their lives (football, girlfriends, clubbing) before making their fatal turn towards the illusory security of religious fundamentalism, which promised them riches in the next life (“Allah will give you back 700 times more”) in return for sacrificing this one. So much for Khan’s brief notion of becoming Britain’s “first Asian PM”.
But young men who voluntarily go to join a bloodthirsty death cult which murders women and children, massacres men, butchers an elderly Muslim archeologist of great courage and distinction, then loots or blows up priceless antiquities deserve no sympathy.But young men who voluntarily go to join a bloodthirsty death cult which murders women and children, massacres men, butchers an elderly Muslim archeologist of great courage and distinction, then loots or blows up priceless antiquities deserve no sympathy.
“Executed many prisoners yesterday,” Khan boasted online. Well, he won’t be doing that again.“Executed many prisoners yesterday,” Khan boasted online. Well, he won’t be doing that again.
So much for Khan and Amin, plus Junaid Hussain, 21, the Birmingham “cyberjihadi” killed in a parallel US drone strike three days later and married to ex-punk-rocker, Sally Jones, 45, from Chatham, a militant convert to radical Islam. There will be other such targets and for every 1,000 young men who recoil from such a futile fate one may be drawn to it. So much for Khan and Amin, plus Junaid Hussain, 21, the Birmingham “cyberjihadi” killed in a parallel US drone strike three days later and married to ex-punk-rocker Sally Jones, 45, from Chatham, a militant convert to radical Islam. There will be other such targets and for every 1,000 young men who recoil from such a futile fate one may be drawn to it.
But what about the other 64.9 million of us? The questions that matter are: a) was the drone strike legal? And b) was it politically and militarily wise?But what about the other 64.9 million of us? The questions that matter are: a) was the drone strike legal? And b) was it politically and militarily wise?
The legal answer is familiar. Lawyers are sometimes a bit like taxis. You stick your hand out, a lawyer picks you up and uses his highly trained mind to take you where you want to go. At journey’s end you pay him or her their fee.The legal answer is familiar. Lawyers are sometimes a bit like taxis. You stick your hand out, a lawyer picks you up and uses his highly trained mind to take you where you want to go. At journey’s end you pay him or her their fee.
So both pro and anti-drone positions will easily find legal support. Here’s the Guardian’s initial foray among our learned friends. Here’s another tentative peek I found in Prospect magazine Scholarly Joshua Rozenberg chews it over here. Why bother? The Daily Mail’s front page settles it all by declaring: “They got what they deserved.” So both pro- and anti-drone positions will easily find legal support. Here’s the Guardian’s initial foray among our learned friends. Here’s another tentative peek I found in Prospect magazine. Scholarly Joshua Rozenberg chews it over here. Why bother? The Daily Mail’s front page settles it all by declaring: “They got what they deserved.”
As the Guardian and Prospect’s authors note, David Cameron’s defence to MPs yesterday rested less than might have been expected on collective self-defence arising from a request by the lawful government of Iraq, which is threatened by the bloody Islamic State “caliphate” out there in the desert. Related: Cameron justifies the drone strike in Syria: is this his WMD moment? | Simon Jenkins
It rested more on the UN sanctioned right of self defence against a perceived terrorist plot on British streets being organised by the deceased. Prof Phillipe Sands QC, the combative academic lawyer who gave Tony Blair a hard time over the 2003 Iraq war, says we were not given enough information by Cameron to make a proper judgment. As the Guardian and Prospect’s authors note, David Cameron’s defence to MPs on Monday rested less than might have been expected on collective self-defence arising from a request by the lawful government of Iraq, which is threatened by the bloody Islamic State “caliphate” out there in the desert.
More intelligence will be demanded, but, as Blair found, that is a minefield in itself. The obvious comparisons are with the Falklands war of 1982, used to repel as invasion, and the post-9/11 invasion of the al-Qaida stronghold in Afghanistan, though the SAS’s triple IRA killings in Gibraltar (1988) may also be a precedent. The European court upheld Margaret Thatcher’s self defence plea. Simon Jenkins, ever the intellectual Tory pessimist, wonders if this is Cameron’s dodgy “WMD moment”. I doubt it. It rested more on the UN-sanctioned right of self-defence against a perceived terrorist plot on British streets being organised by the deceased. Prof Phillipe Sands QC, the combative academic lawyer who gave Tony Blair a hard time over the 2003 Iraq war, says we were not given enough information by Cameron to make a proper judgment.
But it’s rarely cut and dried, always political as well as legal. Even casual references to “Blair’s illegal war” are disputed (here’s a scholarly refutation I stumbled on) and Sands occasionally acknowledges that the Kosovo invasion of 1999 was “strictly speaking” illegal by virtue of being a Nato, not UN, operation, but that he supported it. That’s why I sometimes call him “Shifting Sands”. More intelligence will be demanded, but, as Blair found, that is a minefield in itself. The obvious comparisons are with the Falklands war of 1982, where it was used to repel an invasion, and the post-9/11 invasion of the al-Qaida stronghold in Afghanistan, though the SAS’s triple IRA killings in Gibraltar (1988) may also be a precedent. The European court upheld Margaret Thatcher’s self-defence plea. Simon Jenkins, ever the intellectual Tory pessimist, wonders if this is Cameron’s dodgy “WMD moment”. I doubt it.
But it’s rarely cut and dried, always political as well as legal. Even casual references to “Blair’s illegal war” are disputed (here’s a scholarly refutation I stumbled on) and Sands occasionally acknowledges that the Kosovo invasion of 1999 was “strictly speaking” illegal by virtue of being a Nato, not UN, operation but that he supported it. That’s why I sometimes call him “Shifting Sands”.
Of greater practical concern is: was Cameron’s decision wise? He revealed (or did he, asks Roy Greenslade) what happened on 21 August while supposedly at Westminster to tell MPs about his decision to admit more refugees, many of them fleeing Isis and the Assad regime in Syria.Of greater practical concern is: was Cameron’s decision wise? He revealed (or did he, asks Roy Greenslade) what happened on 21 August while supposedly at Westminster to tell MPs about his decision to admit more refugees, many of them fleeing Isis and the Assad regime in Syria.
He must have known, of course he did, which topic would dominate subsequent headlines, so one is left yet again with an anxious feeling about his preference for tactics over strategy.He must have known, of course he did, which topic would dominate subsequent headlines, so one is left yet again with an anxious feeling about his preference for tactics over strategy.
A former chief of staff has complained since retirement that discussing Syrian options with Cameron’s team in 2012 was like dealing with children. Soldiers flatter themselves (just wait for Chilcot!) but General Sir David Richards probably has a point. Politicians no longer have military experience of their own to guide them.A former chief of staff has complained since retirement that discussing Syrian options with Cameron’s team in 2012 was like dealing with children. Soldiers flatter themselves (just wait for Chilcot!) but General Sir David Richards probably has a point. Politicians no longer have military experience of their own to guide them.
Related: Right of self-defence central to legal debate over Syria drone strike
I suspect Cameron felt impelled to authorise the Reaper (as in Grim Reaper?) drone attack from RAF Waddington in distant Lincolnshire (or from the even more distant US airbase at Creech in Nevada, where UK crews also operate) because any failure to prevent a terrorist attack of which the intelligence services had prior knowledge might have finished his career.I suspect Cameron felt impelled to authorise the Reaper (as in Grim Reaper?) drone attack from RAF Waddington in distant Lincolnshire (or from the even more distant US airbase at Creech in Nevada, where UK crews also operate) because any failure to prevent a terrorist attack of which the intelligence services had prior knowledge might have finished his career.
We can all follow that train of thought and, most of us, be grateful someone else takes the decision. But it doesn’t amount to a military strategy for bringing peace to Syria and the wider Middle East, let alone to stemming the rising tide of refuges trying to enter Europe. We can all follow that train of thought and, most of us, be grateful someone else takes the decision. But it doesn’t amount to a military strategy for bringing peace to Syria and the wider Middle East, let alone stemming the rising tide of refuges trying to enter Europe.
The west is damned when it intervenes and when it doesn’t, as in Syria, sometimes by the very people who seem unconcerned by Russian or Iranian interventions of a cynical or destructive kind. Reports this week suggest Moscow is expanding its foothold in Syria. Those aggressive Ukrainians must be behind it again, eh?The west is damned when it intervenes and when it doesn’t, as in Syria, sometimes by the very people who seem unconcerned by Russian or Iranian interventions of a cynical or destructive kind. Reports this week suggest Moscow is expanding its foothold in Syria. Those aggressive Ukrainians must be behind it again, eh?
But talking to Tehran, where our embassy is now open, as well as to Moscow, to broker an imperfect settlement is a more important part of the equation than drone strikes, however satisfying to a videogame generation. We must avoid the slippery slope ahead. But talking to Tehran, where our embassy is now open, as well as to Moscow, to broker an imperfect settlement is a more important part of the equation than drone strikes, however satisfying to a video game generation. We must avoid the slippery slope ahead.
Isis may be contained from the air, but unless it faces a proper army like Turkey’s (unlikely in view of Turkish ambiguity) we will probably have to sit it out until it chokes on its own blood and live with the interim consequences as best we can. That they will include attacks in Britain must now be slightly more likely.Isis may be contained from the air, but unless it faces a proper army like Turkey’s (unlikely in view of Turkish ambiguity) we will probably have to sit it out until it chokes on its own blood and live with the interim consequences as best we can. That they will include attacks in Britain must now be slightly more likely.
It may sound like a counsel of despair, but patience and vigilance is usually better than Top Gun responses. Impotence? Yes, but that’s the price of economic and political weakness. And before you murmur “what about the UN?”, read Chris McGreal here.It may sound like a counsel of despair, but patience and vigilance is usually better than Top Gun responses. Impotence? Yes, but that’s the price of economic and political weakness. And before you murmur “what about the UN?”, read Chris McGreal here.