Accomplishments of US-led airstrikes against IS in Syria questioned as France joins campaign

[webfact]

Accomplishments of US-led airstrikes against IS in Syria questioned as France joins campaign
By SYLVIE CORBET and LORI HINNANT, Associated Press

PARIS (AP) — French lawmakers are debating the decision to join a military air campaign over Syria, raising new questions about what a year of U.S.-led bombing of the Islamic State group has accomplished.

British, Australian and Belgian leaders are also considering expanding ongoing airstrikes in Iraq to Syria — but critics in all countries are questioning the point of widening a campaign that has failed to stem advances by the extremist organization.

French reconnaissance flights in Syria began last week, and President Francois Hollande said airstrikes there would follow soon. Tuesday's parliamentary debate is not a request for permission — the government needs none — but rather an opportunity to explain its decision before a skeptical audience.

Prime Minister Manuel Valls told Parliament that France will decide "alone" on it targets. He justified the decision to intervene in Syria as "self-defense" against terrorism. France has seen deadly attacks this year linked to Islamic extremists abroad.

The United States, Canada and Middle Eastern allies Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates have been striking targets in Syria for months and were recently joined by Turkey. Until now, France, Britain, Australia, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands have only conducted airstrikes in Iraq, where the government has requested help dealing with the IS onslaught, fearing that hitting at IS in Syria would ultimately help the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

For France, the influx of Syrian and Iraqi refugees into Europe has shifted the equation.

"The government wants to be seen as being decisive and doing something," said Francois Heisbourg, chairman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "The beauty of airstrikes is you can decide them readily, you can implement them very quickly and easily, and in media terms they're quite spectacular."

However, he said he doesn't think the French airstrikes will be any more effective than the U.S.'s airstrikes in Syria, which he said "haven't been conclusive."

The conservative opposition in France also warned that airstrikes will not significantly change the situation on the ground.

"Would an air operation, with no regional powers involved and no international mandate, bring a strategic advantage? Clearly, we don't think so", Christian Jacob, head of the conservative group at the lower house of Parliament, stressed.

Valls, however, ruled out any ground intervention.

"The examples in Iraq and in Afghanistan teach us that we would need to mobilize tens of thousands of men who would then be exposed to great danger. And this is incidentally the trap that is set up against us by the Jihadists: forcing us to intervene on their ground to get us bogged down," he said.

Last week the prime ministers of Australia and Britain announced they would resettle Syrian refugees and called for expanding airstrikes to Syria — but they too have faced questions from the opposition.

"What's the objective here? What's the end game? It's not enough to be speaking in sound bites about what an evil organization Daesh is," Australian opposition deputy leader Tanya Plibersek said at the time, using the Arabic acronym for the IS group.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has indicated he'll push for a House of Commons vote on airstrikes on IS in Syria despite opposition by the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

"It doesn't necessarily depend on the views of one person," Cameron said during a recent trip to the Middle East, suggesting he'd push for vote if he believed enough lawmakers would back expansion.

Cameron has said he'd try for a vote when he thinks he can win parliamentary consensus. He was defeated in pushing for airstrikes on Syria in 2013.

Corbyn restated his opposition last weekend, writing in The Observer: "The prime minister will soon again be asking us to bomb Syria. That won't help refugees, it will create more."

It's not clear how adding countries to the list of airstrike partners will change a situation that has not stopped IS from expanding control of territory in Syria.

"A counterinsurgency war is not won in the air," said Claude Moniquet, a former French intelligence agent who now runs a security consulting firm. "Nobody wants to be involved in a ground war in Syria and Iraq because it will drive us to an important amount of losses and nobody wants to be responsible for the body bags which will come back."
___

Associated Press writer Danica Kirka in London contributed.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-09-16

[noitom]

The international press should refer to the islamic state as "Daesh."

[ABCer]

Semantics is irrelevant.

Ineffectiveness is a proof of ... ineffectiveness.

Would be nice if the Russians demonstrated their ability to get results compared to US actions.

But the cost to civilians will be high.

[simple1]

Australia has already commenced air strikes in Syria, two days ago destroying an APC in a Daesh compound, why Defense would boast about such a minor achievement I do no know.

Complexity will be added by Russian support (pilots?) for the Syrian Air Force should the coalition ever get around to provide protected zones along the Turkish / Jordanian borders for refugees.

[ABCer]

It is always comforting to know that many countries are fighting Islamists, Terrorists, Jihadists or whatever you like to call them in Middle East.

Without doubt each country pursues its own agenda. And will criticize the motives of other participants.

Meanwhile the fate of migrants, displaced people, escapees, asylum seekers, deserters, fortune seekers or fifth column organisers - whatever you like to call them - is indeed

- partly tragic;

- partly wreaking havoc in neighboring countries;

- partly destructive towards Europe.

Such a massive exodus, though understandable, is in fact a capitulation before the enemy. It is an invitation to more of the same actions by the said Islamists, Terrorists, Jihadists, Daeshists etc. The help from the West, East and generally the rest of the World countries is a Good Thing. But the locals are obliged to fight! Instead of running to Europe bringing unto it the same malady.

Everybody agrees that our life is what we make of it.

Not what American, French or Russian bombers will bring.

The best way to build your own life is in your own country. And if the need calls for it - people must fight.

[oneday]

"...but critics in all countries are questioning the point of widening a campaign that has failed to stem advances by the extremist organization..."

It's harder to kill cockroaches than you would think. They hide in all manner of dark places when the light shines on them and they multiply faster than rabbits.

[Bakseeda]

Semantics is irrelevant.

Ineffectiveness is a proof of ... ineffectiveness.

Would be nice if the Russians demonstrated their ability to get results compared to US actions.

But the cost to civilians will be high.

Now that is a sad statement, " Russians demonstrated their ability" and a bit of an oxymoron. Those two words just do not sit well together, Russian and ability. Apart from their indoor athletes whom have been way surpassed by Chinese these last few years... What have the Russians done.. Bought Chelsea.. ! Putin is same as a Mafia Don, the country is run by criminals... Fairness and Freedom have long vanished. They are trying to suck up to Bashir Assole Assad. They want his $$$s... They are not there to attack Daesh, but to protect Assad from the Daesh advance.... Go for the European/USA joint action force everyday. Death and syphilis to Daesh......

Edited September 16, 2015 by Bakseeda

[spidermike007]

The international press should refer to the islamic state as "Daesh."

I think they should refer to them as GRTHWF. Gang raping, thieving hooligans without faith.