What are they thinking?

There’s an issue I’ve been hearing about that’s been dividing the government in the UK: the issue of whether or not to conduct air strikes in Syria to fight ISIL. This has resulted in the Labour party being divided by their leader’s refusal to support air strikes, even as much of his cabinet wants to agree with the prime minister David Cameron and the French president Francois Hollande. At first I thought it was more of the same old war issue, bickering over whether or not we should keep fighting even while ISIL was gunning for our heads no matter what we think of them, but I learned that it’s all just bickering over whether or not we should strike them from the air.

My question to the leaders of the Western world is this: why are you still thinking of dropping bombs on Syria?

Surely we are already familiar with the devastation in Syria that was caused by previous air strikes against the country in hopes of flushing out ISIL. Not only has ISIL not been significantly pushed back by these air strikes, but innocent people have been injured or killed by those strikes, and have undoubtedly had their lives shattered by the whole affair, and our air strikes against Syria have exacerbated the migrant crisis. Our leaders just have to be aware of all this, yet I still here them suggesting a continuation of dropping bombs in Syria as though nothing had happened.

Pictured: Devastation in Syria caused by air strikes

If the West is serious about fighting ISIL, why don’t they just stop dropping bombs on Syria and just start fighting on the ground? And with a plan no less? Because seriously, I am convinced that just dropping bombs on a country in order to get rid of the likes of ISIL is just not a viable plan. Not when it results in innocent casualties and the while ISIL has not been held back by it. That we don’t realize this and still intend on just dropping bombs on a country thinking that will solve the problem worries me because it bespeaks a kind of laziness and shortsightedness, and it even makes me wonder if these world leaders even want to fight at all.

5 responses to “What are they thinking?

  1. The principle at stake is International Law, where President Assad is the legitimate head of state in Syria, but nations such as the UK are making decisions to bomb his country without first obtaining the consent of Assad and his government.

    • On the one hand I wouldn’t care about getting his permission, because he’s a dictator (or at least as far as I know). But on the other hand, with ISIL around, taking out Assad seems like a bad idea at this time because if he goes with ISIL still around, they could take advantage of the situation and try to take over Syria. Either way, the bombs have shown to do nothing.

  2. Basically the west got it wrong. They thought that Assads regime in Syria would fall like the ones in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt; given a little push. It didn’t. Actually the evidence from Libya and Egypt was already looking questionable… Russia for entirely selfish reasons backed Assad and got it sort of right. In the wake of all this ISIS filled the power vacuum while all the participants were fighting amongst themselves and creating carnage in Syria and instability in Europe due to the refugee crisis. Now the west have realised correctly that ISIS is the biggest threat and needs to be eliminated. That means forming an unspoken alliance with Russia and allowing Assad to return to power in some form. Clearly bombing alone will not exterminate ISIS, so the west chooses to believe a fairy story that troops on the ground will be supplied by all the groups who are currently fighting Assad and each other. It is a total mess. We do really need to get rid of ISIS but this shambles of a plan won’t do it and may make things much worse.

    • You know, I can’t help but think the West these days has a problem of creating a mess in the Middle East, but then backing out while it’s still too early instead of owning the mess the made. And I have a funny feeling part of Syria’s problem is the result of Obama doing nothing to aid Syria. He did plan to deal with Assad, but decided to hold back, and so America did not help, so the extremists who also opposed Assad began to exploit the opportunity, and from what I’ve heard one of them was what we now call ISIL.

  3. ISIS is a problem for everyone, even though they are only 30,000 strong. While the bombings on Syria aren’t proving to be very effective, utilizing ground troops would give ISIS exactly what it wants. Baghdadi has already said that it was his dream to fight American troops on Iraqi soil. You need to understand the history of the battles that have been fought in that area, and how notoriously difficult the terrain is to work with – giving ISIS a ground battle is giving them proof that they are a strong enough group to mobilize nations. Sure, it could be argued that ISIS has already managed to mobilize nations, but not in the way that they want. And tactics 101 – you never give an enemy what they want. That’s just bad strategy.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s