Category Archives: Islamic State

Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Iraq, Islamic State, Politics, United States

Is fighting the Islamic State (IS) the start of another Iraq war?

IRAQ

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has insisted that the Government’s position on Iraq was ‘clear’.

In truth, however, it is far from that as British involvement continues to take on an evolving and expanding role that is outside its original aim of supplying only humanitarian aid to the terrified minorities under attack from the barbarous Islamic State.

Yet, day by day, that position has continued to shift alarmingly. Let’s consider the facts.

First, ministers admitted Special Forces had been deployed. Then Britain said it would ‘look favourably’ on a request for arms and equipment from Kurdish fighters and deployed RAF surveillance aircraft to help gather intelligence for US airstrikes against the jihadists.

The same fighter jets can drop their payloads – and, with the speed events (as they are) moving, they could soon and very quickly be asked to do so. Meanwhile, the political rhetoric has been ramped up.

Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, has said that the UK’s military involvement could last for ‘months’, while Mr Cameron warned of a ‘political and extremism crisis’ in Iraq that had a ‘direct effect’ on the UK.

Disturbingly, the same argument – that, if left unchecked, the terrorists could soon bring bloodshed to the streets of Britain, was used by Tony Blair to justify the disastrous intervention in Afghanistan.

Surely, Britain should be using her political and diplomatic levers and by making far greater efforts to persuade Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – which have vast resources – to play their part. Most crucially, as recent British foreign ventures have shown in both Iraq and Afghanistan, any British military action must have defined objectives, a time limit and parliamentary support.

How far is Britain to be sucked into this terrifying crisis?

Standard
Britain, European Union, Foreign Affairs, Government, Iraq, Islamic State, Middle East, Military, Politics, United States

Britain supports the Kurds in northern Iraq…

IRAQ

BRITAIN is set to provide anti-tank weapons, night vision googles, radar and body armour to Kurdish forces in northern Iraq who are battling Islamic State jihadists.

The region’s fighters say they will ask the UK for specific equipment after Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said a request for weapons and other equipment would be ‘considered favourably’.

An emergency meeting of EU ministers has condemned the ‘atrocities and abuses’ against religious minorities – such as the Yazidis – and backed the arming of Kurdish forces.

RAF Chinooks sent by Britain to the region are already ferrying weapons supplied by other countries, including France, to Kurds in the city of Irbil. It is here where British and US Special Forces are helping plan an offensive against the IS militants.

Map of Iraq and surrounding areas highlighting IS advances and aid-drop points.

Map of Iraq and surrounding areas highlighting IS advances and aid-drop points.

They are also providing training in the use of the newly supplied weapons, including ‘Milan’ anti-tank missiles and Belgian-made machine guns.

Kurdish fighters would like the UK to provide Javelin anti-tank missiles, mortars, heavy-calibre machine guns and sniper rifles as well as body armour, infrared night vision googles and helmets. They may also be given a portable radar called MSTAR used to locate incoming fire and enemy positions.

Britain had previously said it would only ferry weapons to the Kurds, not supply them. The change of stance could risk drawing the UK back into Iraq’s conflict.

The weapons supply and training are in addition to the RAF Tornados, Hercules transport planes, and other support vehicles and troops already in the region.

The chancellor of the Kurdish region’s security council, Masrour Barzani, said he welcomed the ‘British decision to supply us with the effective weapons that we’ve been asking for’.

The British Government insists that tackling the dire humanitarian situation in Iraq remains the UK’s top priority.

A Downing Street spokesman, said: ‘Ensuring that Kurdish forces are able to counter IS advances is also vital. We have made clear that we will consider any requests from the Iraq or Kurdistan Regional Government favourably.’

No 10 highlighted the plight of the Dahuk region in northern Iraq where 450,000 displaced people are taking shelter – a 50 per cent increase in the area’s population. Farhad Atushi, the governor of Dahuk, said the US and UK are ‘politically and ethically responsible for helping Iraq’.

Mr Atushi has also warned of the threat of ‘genocide’, adding: ‘We have hundreds of thousands (of refugees). We’re going to face an international humanitarian catastrophe because many of those are children who are going to die.’

Former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown also welcomed the Government’s decision as he warned that conflicts in Iraq and Syria would result in redrawing Middle Eastern borders.

He said the Kurds could act as a ‘northern bulwark’ against the advancing IS, but added: ‘We are acting as handmaidens to Kurdish independence, with implications for Turkey, which is why you have to have a wider strategy.’

Lord Ashdown continued: ‘It really is time we joined the dots. Instead of having a series of plans for a series of humanitarian catastrophes, we need to have an integrated strategy for containing a widening war.’

Mr Hammond has hailed the announcement that Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al-Maliki was relinquishing his post, calling on his replacement Haider al-Abadi to form an inclusive government.

It is hoped Mr al-Abadi will be better placed to unite Iraqis in fighting back against IS militants.

Standard
Britain, Government, Iraq, Islamic State, Military, Politics, United States

The British military in Iraq are operating on blurred lines. Parliament needs to discuss the issue…

IRAQ: ISLAMIC STATE

The nature of our operational involvement in Iraq, while welcome, has made significant step changes to what the UK is now doing. This comes without proper parliamentary scrutiny and approval.

The actions of the military have involved dropping essential food parcels and water purification kits to those refugees fleeing the Islamic State militia. However, it has now been tasked with a large-scale rescue mission, but this – undoubtedly – is a major advance to what it was initially tasked to do.

The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, is at pains to point out that this is a humanitarian aid relief effort rather than a military mission. But the line between aid and intervention is beginning to blur. The risks to the lives of our aircrews (and troops, should they be necessary on the ground) coming under attack by jihadists is definite and real. ISIS has already hit British military helicopters transiting those stranded on Mount Sinjar to safer ground, and it only seems a matter of time before the shooting down of an aircraft is reported. The British Government, along with its advisers, is jumping in once again without any consideration of what has recently happened in this most volatile of country’. It is quickly becoming apparent it has learned nothing of how military deployments should be sanctioned, and leaves open the Westminster Government to charges of blinkeredness and audacious adventurism.

We would no-doubt expect politicians from across the spectrum to support the rescue mission of those innocents fleeing for the safety of the lives, but Mr Cameron appears to be taking too much for granted as British forces become increasingly involved.

The British public deserve to know exactly what the country is getting into, and our democratically elected politicians must be given the chance to debate and speak up in parliament.

Just days ago, Britain was going no further than providing airdrops of food and water. Now, our involvement is markedly more dangerous. The risk of ‘mission creep’ is ever-present, and now even more of a possibility than before. The ‘rules of engagement’ in this theatre of war are still vague and there remains a risk that circumstances could draw the British military into combat.

David Cameron has so far resisted demands to recall parliament to discuss the crisis. But, as the UK gets further involved, that position is becoming increasingly untenable.

Standard