Operation Featherweight: Month 2, Week 3, Day 6.

Today the UK Parliament is debating and is expected to vote on a motion authorising the use of  the British military in Iraq in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The text of that motion can be read here; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmagenda/ob140926.htm

The majority of the motion is rather self-explanatory and uncontroversial. It simply establishes that Iraq has come under invasion by a foreign group (ISIL) and the Iraqi government has requested British help (air-strikes) in repelling that incursion. The crucial element of the motion though is that it "does not endorse UK air strikes in Syria as part of this campaign and any proposal to do so would be subject to a separate vote in Parliament." meaning that if the UK wishes to become involved in Syria it will require further Parliamentary discussion and a vote to do so. Also the motion does not allow for the UK to deploy ground forces into combat in Iraq.

The motion is supported by the UK government's legal position on the issue that can be read here; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/military-action-in-iraq-against-isil-government-legal-position/summary-of-the-government-legal-position-on-military-action-in-iraq-against-isil

Unlike the legal position published last year proposing air-strikes in support of ISIL the UK government have actually got it right this time. ISIL have invaded or partially invaded the sovereign territory of Iraq which is an illegal act under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. The Iraqi government has requested that the UK assist them in repelling that incursion which is a lawful request under Article 51 of United Nations Charter. If the Iraqi government had not made such a request then the threat to regional security and the high crimes against humanity committed by ISIL would give the UK authority to act under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2170(2014) which was passed under Article 42 (Chapter 7) of the United Nations Charter.

The moral case for military action couldn't be more clear; To quote Abu Qatada who hardly has a reputation as a moderate ISIL are simply a "killing machine." Their entire purpose is to force themselves into a territory and then exterminate any man, woman and child who disagrees with them be they Christians, Yazidis, Shia Muslims or even Sunni Muslims who have simply read and understood the Qu'ran. This type to wanton destruction quite clearly constitutes a crime against humanity and has not been seen on this scale since Nazi Germany rampaged across much of Europe causing the World to define crimes against humanity.

With the legal and moral tests having been more then passed along with a very real chance that military action will defeat ISIL if done properly and a clear limitation being placed on that action to prevent mission creep I have absolutely no problem supporting this motion. I hope the UK Parliament does the same.

11:55 on 26/9/14 (UK date).

Edited at around 16:40 on 26/9/14 (UK date) to add;

The UK Parliament has voted overwhelmingly in support of the motion by a margin of 524 votes in favour to 43 votes against. This gives permission for 6 Royal Air Force (RAF) GR4 Tornado jets to join the undisclosed number of French Rafele jets, the 8 Australian F/A-18 jets, the 6 Dutch F-16 jets, the 6 Belgian F-16 jets and the 7 Danish F-16 jets that have been dispatched to take action in Iraq.

Although the British can operate from an RAF base in Cyprus the first task these nations face is to get permission from the US to operate from an airbase in Iraq or from the Incirlik base in Turkey. Their second task will be to help the US draw up a strategic plan to fight ISIL because right now operations have been utterly chaotic.

In the past 24 hours the US has bombed ISIL vehicles close to Kurdish Peshmerga positions around Kirkuk and ISIL vehicles close to Iraqi army positions near Baghdad. However in neither instance does there seem to have been any co-ordination between the air forces and the ground forces to allow the ground forces to take advantage of these strikes by seizing territory from ISIL. In Syria the situation is even more disorganised. The US has destroyed 4 ISIL tanks close to Dayr az Zawr where they didn't seem to be posing a direct threat to anyone. An undisclosed member of the coalition (likely Saudi Arabia) has continued to attack ISIL controlled oil refineries around Dayr az Zawr. There have also been unconfirmed reports of air-strikes (most likely by the UAE) being carried out in ISIL positions close to Kobane/Ayn al-Arab where they may have had some small effect in slowing ISIL's advance into Kurdish territory.

None of these air-strikes seem to be in any way connected to each other and certainly don't seem to be part of any strategic plan. Instead they seem to be simply isolated incidents of random violence which serve little purpose in defeating ISIL.

If this was a purely North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) operation what would have already have happened by now is that a central command would have been assembled with a single, designated supreme commander of operations. That commander would then draw up a battle plan to defeat ISIL and identify the targets that need to be destroyed in order for that battle plan to succeed. Those targets would then be assigned to the forces in the coalition capable of dealing with them on almost taxi rank like basis.

As such I think everyone in the coalition should stop bombing until such a time as this central command and control structure has been set up and judging by the problems at the air traffic command and control centre in Chicago, US I'm not alone in thinking that. After all without a strategic plan to defeat ISIL this is simply a lot of people wasting a lot of time and money - a self-inflicted wound if you will.