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/politics/2015/jul/02/syria-airstrikes-fortify-uk-against-isis-threat-michael-fallon

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

Version 0 Version 1
Syria airstrikes would fortify UK against Isis attacks, argues Michael Fallon Syria airstrikes would fortify UK against Isis attacks, argues Michael Fallon
(35 minutes later)
Fallon argues that if evidence emerges linking the killing of Britons in Tunisia to Islamic State, then the group presents a direct threat to the UK. He also argues, with some justification, that it is illogical to fight Isis in Iraq but not in Syria, given the group does not recognise borders and its strongholds are in Syria. Fallon argues that if evidence emerges linking the killing of Britons in Tunisia to Islamic State, then the group presents a direct threat to the UK. He also argues, with some justification, that it is illogical to fight Isis in Iraq but not in Syria, given that the group does not recognise borders and its strongholds are in Syria.
But Fallon is motivated, too, by the recent chatter – most gallingly from the US –that the UK is a fast-fading power. His response has been to talk up the UK’s military involvement in eastern Europe – from Baltic air patrols to helping train the Ukrainian army – and air strikes against Isis in Iraq.But Fallon is motivated, too, by the recent chatter – most gallingly from the US –that the UK is a fast-fading power. His response has been to talk up the UK’s military involvement in eastern Europe – from Baltic air patrols to helping train the Ukrainian army – and air strikes against Isis in Iraq.
Fallon has another incentive, too. He is facing a strategic defence review by the end of the year and a chancellor desperately looking for budget cuts. Fallon has to make a case that the UK is facing serious threats and that money has to be provided to meet these.Fallon has another incentive, too. He is facing a strategic defence review by the end of the year and a chancellor desperately looking for budget cuts. Fallon has to make a case that the UK is facing serious threats and that money has to be provided to meet these.
Related: Tunisia attack: David Cameron pledges 'full spectrum' response to massacreRelated: Tunisia attack: David Cameron pledges 'full spectrum' response to massacre
The prime minister, David Cameron, in response to the Tunisian beach massacre, said the UK would consider a “full spectrum” of responses. In reality, the options available to the UK are limited. One of the few would be to extend air operations into Syria.The prime minister, David Cameron, in response to the Tunisian beach massacre, said the UK would consider a “full spectrum” of responses. In reality, the options available to the UK are limited. One of the few would be to extend air operations into Syria.
There would be a debate in the UK about mission creep. But in Syria the impact would be minimal. The US is already engaged in air strikes against Isis targets in Syria, aided by Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The UK joining this coalition would not make a significant difference.There would be a debate in the UK about mission creep. But in Syria the impact would be minimal. The US is already engaged in air strikes against Isis targets in Syria, aided by Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The UK joining this coalition would not make a significant difference.
The US central command, Centcom, in its tally since operations against Isis began in August last year, claims to have damaged or destroyed 7,655 targets in Iraq and Syria, including tanks, armoured personnel carriers, buildings and “fighting positions”. The UK accounts for only a small percentage of the total, with the US responsible for most of it.The US central command, Centcom, in its tally since operations against Isis began in August last year, claims to have damaged or destroyed 7,655 targets in Iraq and Syria, including tanks, armoured personnel carriers, buildings and “fighting positions”. The UK accounts for only a small percentage of the total, with the US responsible for most of it.
This would be difficult. The US-led coalition has already hit the obvious targets. Part of the problem for the coalition is finding targets. In spite of its name, Isis is not a state so it does not have the infrastructure that would normally be targeted.This would be difficult. The US-led coalition has already hit the obvious targets. Part of the problem for the coalition is finding targets. In spite of its name, Isis is not a state so it does not have the infrastructure that would normally be targeted.
Isis has also learned not to make it easy for the US and its allies so is less inclined to send tanks, armoured personnel carriers and fighters out into the open.Isis has also learned not to make it easy for the US and its allies so is less inclined to send tanks, armoured personnel carriers and fighters out into the open.
If the prospect of airstrikes proved to be too controversial, with memories of the 2003 Iraq invasion and its consequences still fresh, an alternative would be to restrict operations to flying UK drones over Syria, purely for reconnaissance. That would at least establish a precedent for involvement in Syria.If the prospect of airstrikes proved to be too controversial, with memories of the 2003 Iraq invasion and its consequences still fresh, an alternative would be to restrict operations to flying UK drones over Syria, purely for reconnaissance. That would at least establish a precedent for involvement in Syria.
Yes, but only by troops on the ground, and neither the US nor the UK has any desire to do this. The UK has 900 personnel committed to the fight against Isis but most of these are air crews and air support staff, operating from bases outside Iraq. There are 150 British troops in Iraq at present, mainly in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. A further 100 are to be sent to help train the Iraqi army in detecting and defusing improvised explosive devices and a further 25 in bridge-building. Yes, but only by troops on the ground, and neither the US nor the UK has any desire to do this. The UK has 900 personnel committed to the fight against Isis but most of these are air crew and air support staff, operating from bases outside Iraq. There are 150 British troops in Iraq at present, mainly in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. A further 100 are to be sent to help train the Iraqi army in detecting and defusing improvised explosive devices and a further 25 in bridge-building.
The US and UK have put the onus of fighting Isis on the Iraqi army, which remains demoralised, mainly as a result of Shia-Sunni divisions. The army has been slow to mount an assault on Mosul, the key to the north, in spite of repeated pleas from Washington.The US and UK have put the onus of fighting Isis on the Iraqi army, which remains demoralised, mainly as a result of Shia-Sunni divisions. The army has been slow to mount an assault on Mosul, the key to the north, in spite of repeated pleas from Washington.
Even if Isis was to be pushed from Iraq, which would itself be a hard and bloody prospect, the US, the UK and other allies could still be looking forlornly at how to tackle Isis strongholds in Syria. Who would provide the boots on the ground? US-backed Syrian rebel groups? The Turkish army? Even if Isis was to be pushed from Iraq, which would itself be a hard and bloody prospect, the US, the UK and other allies could still be looking forlornly at how to tackle Isis strongholds in Syria. Who would provide the “boots on the ground”? US-backed Syrian rebel groups? The Turkish army?
The bottom line is that the US at present has no plan for Iraq and Syria. The military is patiently waiting for guidance from the Obama administration. Without an overall plan, there is little either the US or UK forces can do other than what they are doing at present, which is containment.The bottom line is that the US at present has no plan for Iraq and Syria. The military is patiently waiting for guidance from the Obama administration. Without an overall plan, there is little either the US or UK forces can do other than what they are doing at present, which is containment.