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/uk-news/2015/jul/17/british-pilots-bombing-isis-are-just-part-of-a-historic-military-exchange
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
British pilots bombing Isis are just part of a longstanding military exchange | |
(35 minutes later) | |
It is no surprise that British naval pilots should be flying under American colours against Islamic State: exchanges of personnel between the two countries have been routine for decades. The surprise is that they have been engaged in air strikes in Syria despite an explicit 2013 ban by the British parliament on such operations. | |
A second surprise is that no one at British Ministry of Defence seems to have had the nous to think that engagement of UK pilots in strikes expressly forbidden by parliament might not be a good idea. | |
The US and UK have been embedding personnel in each other’s forces since the 1950s, a process that has accelerated in recent years. The UK also has such exchanges with French forces and other allies in a push for greater compatibility in equipment, communications and command structures. | The US and UK have been embedding personnel in each other’s forces since the 1950s, a process that has accelerated in recent years. The UK also has such exchanges with French forces and other allies in a push for greater compatibility in equipment, communications and command structures. |
But the UK is the closest to the US in terms of exchanging personnel. Military chiefs at a conference in London this week on US-UK naval co-operation said British naval pilots regularly flew American planes from US carriers. About 20 British personnel have been embedded with US and Canadian forces over the past 11 months in operations against Isis targets in Iraq and Syria. Of these, three British navy pilots have taken part in air strikes in Syria. | |
The MoD’s response to criticism of their involvement is that when embedded, they come under the command of the country to which they are attached. There is apparent logic to this. If British pilots are part of a US roster, it might seem churlish for them to decline to take part in Syrian operations. In reality, it is not unusual for embedded military personnel to ask for such exemptions, citing their country’s foreign policy position. | The MoD’s response to criticism of their involvement is that when embedded, they come under the command of the country to which they are attached. There is apparent logic to this. If British pilots are part of a US roster, it might seem churlish for them to decline to take part in Syrian operations. In reality, it is not unusual for embedded military personnel to ask for such exemptions, citing their country’s foreign policy position. |
The defence secretary, Michael Fallon, argues it is illogical for the UK to restrict attacks against Isis to Iraq alone, given its stronghold is in the Syrian city of Raqqa, and is pushing for a parliamentary vote to authorise expansion to include Syria. | The defence secretary, Michael Fallon, argues it is illogical for the UK to restrict attacks against Isis to Iraq alone, given its stronghold is in the Syrian city of Raqqa, and is pushing for a parliamentary vote to authorise expansion to include Syria. |
Labour, which voted against air strikesin Syria last time, said it would consider the government’s proposal but a decision has to await election of a new leader. Labour support is not a given: there are at least goals of a sort in Iraq – air strikes in support of Iraq’s raggle-taggle army and the more efficient Kurdish forces – but no such clarity in Syria over which anti-Isis forces the UK would support. | |
The US would welcome an expansion of British air strikes to include Syria but regards UK involvement as far from essential. The problem for the American-led coalition is not lack of air power but a lack of targets. | The US would welcome an expansion of British air strikes to include Syria but regards UK involvement as far from essential. The problem for the American-led coalition is not lack of air power but a lack of targets. |
The US and its allies have carried out 5,200 air strikes against Isis targets in Iraq and Syria since operations began a year ago. The US Department of Defence puts out daily updates, the most recent of which announced 16 air strikes by bombers, fighter jets and drones against targets in or around Hasakah, Aleppo, Kobani and Raqqa. The targets were low level, including Isis motorbikes and two excavators: Isis learned long ago not to deploy large convoys in the desert. | The US and its allies have carried out 5,200 air strikes against Isis targets in Iraq and Syria since operations began a year ago. The US Department of Defence puts out daily updates, the most recent of which announced 16 air strikes by bombers, fighter jets and drones against targets in or around Hasakah, Aleppo, Kobani and Raqqa. The targets were low level, including Isis motorbikes and two excavators: Isis learned long ago not to deploy large convoys in the desert. |