Defeating Isis means Western boots on the ground

__________________________

Filmed at the Emmanuel Centre on 11th February 2016.

Enough is enough. Paris, Sharm El-Sheikh, Istanbul, Jakarta. Isis is the global crucible of terrorism and must be stopped using all means available. After the Paris attacks last November, the US and its allies stepped up the bombing of Isis targets in Syria. Unquestionably, the campaign has had some effect and Isis is not the unstoppable force it seemed to be a year ago. Ramadi was taken by Iraqi forces a few weeks ago, and reports are filtering through of disillusionment and desertion amongst the caliphate’s fighters in Syria. That’s why some experts, such as General John Allen, Obama’s former special envoy to Syria, are calling for the West to finish off the job by deploying its own troops on the ground. After all, no one seriously believes that the war against Isis can be won from the air alone or by using existing local forces. But a judicious and limited use of Western ground forces could crush Isis in its vital nerve centres, after which local troops trained up by the West would take over security, and a political and diplomatic process to find a long-term solution for the region would begin in earnest.

But to others such as Ken Livingstone, who took on Gen. Allen in this debate, such a move would be to fall into a trap. Isis wants to entangle the West in another war that will boost its drive to recruit jihadists across the Muslim world. And even if Isis were defeated, no doubt something just as bad would take its place. As many as 15 Syrian-based Islamist groups are reportedly standing ready to fill the vacuum and would happily absorb what’s left of the die-hard Isis jihadis. Let’s also not forget the dangers of mission creep, which embroiled the West in years of conflict and ‘nation-building’ in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, there are no easy or obvious solutions to this complex crisis, but there are better ways to deal with Isis than sending in the troops – such as starving it of its funding from oil and illicit goods. As for terror attacks, we should keep things in proportion. Whatever the scaremongers say, Isis is not an existential threat to the West. Intelligence and vigilance, not military adventurism, are the key to our security.

Will deploying Western ground troops diminish the pernicious threat of Isis? Or play into the organisation’s hands by encouraging more jihadis to sign up to its violent creed?

[mengelmoesNL]

Rula Jebreal bringing the muslim/ arab form of debate to the room. Fucking annoying. A great example why the region will never get anywhere.

[Jordyvanlith]

"No civil war, in history, has been won with troops." 21:00

WHAT?!

[AldoOjeda]

Not an simple issue to answer.

Rula Jebreal didn't do a good job, she let her emotions and passion took over her arguments and kept interrupting the others, that's not a good way to discuss any issue.

[ehud]

Defeating Isis means stopping the funding and arming of Isis by western nations and Saudi Arabia and aid of Turkey to Isis. The context of this debate and all four panelist are an insult to intelligence.

[kylekane]

For.
You can't win wars like this without boots on the ground.

[protype]

19:23 "We're again lectured, with all due respect, by two white men..."

Oh, man. Here we go again.

[hesswi]

Can't believe Douglas Murray got applauded at 32:00. What a slur, suggesting that the other side don't think that ISIS is a problem. Way off point - what has that to do with whether or not Western troops on the ground are necessary to defeat ISIS.

[StevieAF]

Gen Allen displays typical pc delusion concerning the nature of islam

[ANGLORUSSIANCZ]

Jeeez! I'm a few minutes in and I can't stand it. Does she stop interrupting?

[marianam]

I noticed that some middle eastern Brits were against the motion. I would be torn too if I had family in the region. But I wonder what the few Muslim families, who lost their children in the Paris attacks are thinking today. BTW, that woman was really annoying. Rude, with absolutely no arguments.

[mrspockk]

I remember when before the west invaded Iraq, lots and lots of dissident Iraqis would appear on Tv and radio saying: “Oh you’ve got to help us! Saddam is an evil man! He’s killed so many of his own people. He’s killing people all the time. His sons are killing people in night clubs. And on top of that, Saddam is killing the people called Willie and Nillie! Please, please, please use your military to help us!!”

Then when the west went into Iraq and toppled Saddam in a few short weeks, Iraqis said: “Oh! You’ve killed so many people, you’re killing all these people, womens and childrens! And you’re still killing Willie and Nillie!”

Then when the west tried to stabilize the violence and train the Iraqis to protect their own land. The Iraqis said “Oh you’re so evil because you haven’t stopped the Sunnis massacring the Sheites! Oh you’re so evil because you have done nothing to stop the Sheites massacring the Sunnis. In fact it is you who are responsible for all these massacres! You just want all of our OIL! That is why you really invaded! Why don’t you just leave this place and stop killing Willie and Nillie!?”

So when the west took all it’s military out, the Iraqis said “Look what you’ve done! You’ve destabilized the whole region and left us in this mess where Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, in fact everybody wants to kill Willie and Nillie!”

So my question is: When is the West going to learn that not everyone in the world wants democracy, a nice house in a leafy suburb, a nice car, 2.2 kids and a peaceful existence. Some people just want power, influence and religion.
Stop trying to change the world!! Let the world sort itself out. You are lousy at sorting the world out!! And no one’s gonna thank you, no matter what you do!!! . . . . . . even if you use Willie and Nillie!

I personally think we should most certainly take out ISIS, by using Willie and Nillie! But we should let Asaad take care of his own country.

I know that Asaad is killing lot and lots of his own people, just like Saddam used to and much more. But at the end of the day, no one’s gonna thank anyone for trying to help. All they’re gonna do is accuse and persecute the West for killing Willie and Nillie!!

[shillary]

It's not about defeating ISIS. It's about defeating ISLAM!

[alanabowker]

This is hysterical. After we all sat and watched ISIS destroy the Syrian moderates. You are three years too late with your debate.

[battleofwill]

"That Libya would become a heaven/haven" Surely the main cause of unrest in the region around which all other things revolve are the artificial borders that currently define Libya, Iraq and Syria-clobbered together to balance British, French and Italian interests during the Ottoman collapse-they were held together by the very dictators that Rula prioritizes as an enemy. It is unfortunate that while I agree with the means and military soundness of Gen. Allen even a resounding success of his policy would still sow back together an Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen where two or three irreconcilable forces will pull the state in their directions, be it Sunni, Shiite or Kurd-one lording over the other two.

Drawing borders created the problem, redrawing them is the best solution which hasn't been tested despite obvious local support

[Lomaxient]

This is clearly edited. I wonder if I would be more forgiving had I seen the whole thing, but I was against the motion before and I'm against now. I came because I'm a fan of Douglas Murray & I'm shocked by his position on this. He and John Allen were stronger debaters, but that's beside the point.

Boots on the ground in Syria will not stop terrorists in England. They're already here.
We don't need to defeat ISIS in Syria, the Russians are doing a fine job of it anyway.
We have no legitimacy in Syria.
If this is about ISIS, why is this not a debate about every country riddled with ISIS? Why is this not a debate about going to war with ISIS backers like Saudi Arabia & Turkey?
Why would anyone buy into the idea that the U.S. is doing anything but supporting its own self interests in Syria or would act sensibly?

[SapientSpaceApe]

I guess Rula must be right. She is, after all, brown.

[billthegenericguy]

The sheer ignorance of the against side when it comes to military matters or even basic military history renders this debate almost pointless. They should have found a soldier or at least a civilian expert on the military to speak for the against side.

[Greylin]

i don't think the general has adjusted his speech in any way to the audience. I think he's still writing for a senior US officer audience not some ordinary Londoners...

[axxowiz]

Notice all of the foreign born or foreign born Brits are against the motion. What do you think will happen in Europe when these groups that are coming over by the thousands a day get a bigger majority in politics?

[billthegenericguy]

The first person to speak against the motion should really avoid giving any specifics when speaking about the specific military dimensions of the intervention. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about.