In the Telegraph this morning Fraser Nelson repeats pretty much everything I've written here over the past weeks and months as to why the UK joining military action for the sake of a military outcome is not justified;
- Our RAF contribution will be marginal and will have little effect. Everything there is to bomb has already been bombed
- ISIS have long ago abandoned permanent ground targets, only individual vehicles and convoys remain as targets. Plus individual targeted Jihadists.
- Until this week, convoy targets excluded the columns of oil tankers transporting oil for Turkey's Bilal Erdogan; however, now that both the Russians and US / France are targeting, these will not last for long
- Bombing without ground troops in support makes no sustainable gains
- Dave's imaginary friends, the '70,000 non-extremist rebels', erm, don't exist. The septics spent $12m training a battalion and all but six men ran away and sold their weapons, any others (a few) are Islamists who hate the West
- Cameron can be pig-headed against his own interest; his obsession with regime change in Syria lingers, even though he has no mandate for it, it's losing him Commons support and it's illegal under international law
'Mail' the first to come round on Turkey
The Mail is the first of the national papers to start to come round to the opinions expressed on this blog with an anti-Erdogan piece this morning;
"The fact is that ISIS could rapidly be destroyed if Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq — along with Kurdish guerillas in Turkey — were fully unleashed. They have proved extraordinarily militarily effective and oppose every aspect of Isis’s devilish ideology. Yet this does not happen because PKK forces in Syria and Kurds in northern Iraq are under continual bombardment by the Turkish air force. No, the fact is that while Turkey may be a member of Nato — and of the alliance taking on the jihadists — Erdogan seems to be doing almost everything he can to cripple the forces actually fighting ISIS."