Do ground troops have to be considered by the UK and US if ISIL is to be stopped

Amid warnings that air strikes will not be enough to stop the advance of ISIL, is it time that the UK and US consider the deployment of ground troops in Iraq and Syria?

Both Obama and David Cameron have earlier ruled out boots on the ground but will they be forced to re-consider?

Multiple sources including; The Pentagon press secretary, Syrian Kurds, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, France’s foreign minister, Alan Henning’s brother and many more have publicly stated that air strikes are not enough to stop Islamic State. First, both leaders have made public comments condemning boots on the ground due to the unpopular Afghan War and how it’s a popular opinion that boots on the ground costed the economy too much money and didn’t produce any valuable results. A recent poll carried out found that just over 70% of US troops (of 2,200 polled) were against boots on the ground in Iraq to fight IS. However, a recent poll carried out by CNN News found that people would support boots on the ground if military commanders determined it was the best course of action with 45% of people asked would support ground troops in the region to fight IS as opposed to 37% who would oppose them. A recent yougov poll has found that 29% of the UK public would support ground troops in the region (up 5%), 46% would disapprove (down 9%)  with only 18% completely ruling out boots on the ground. So, what is the right answer? Should there be boots on the ground?

Yes. We have seen proof that air strikes are not doing enough to stop the progression of IS as they are, at the time I’m writing this, potentially hours away from taking full control of Kobani, held by Kurdish fighters. A senior Kurdish official, Ismet Sheikh Hasan, said the latest fighting was focused in the southern and eastern parts of the town. “We are defending but … we have only simple weapons and they have heavy weapons,” he told AP in a telephone call. “They are not besieged and can move easily.” Mr Hasan appealed for international help but added that the US airstrikes that have taken place over the last two weeks have ben largely ineffectual. Furthermore, on Friday Syrian fighters said that they’re outnumbered as they battle IS near the Turkish border – and warned air strikes are missing the target. Therefore, we see that air strikes are relatively ineffective in fighting IS (naturally they can’t be expected to work miracles over night) but it has already become clear that ground troops might have to be considered by the UK and US if air strikes continue to be as ineffective as they currently appear.

How would ground troops be more effective in the fight against IS? This conflict is not one that will end in a couple of months. IS are boasting tens of thousands of troops fighting, lucrative funding and they’re receiving more than $1.5 million a day from oil reserves captured in Iraq and Syria. This is a war that will go on for years, and as such, the governments of the coalition, chiefly the US, might be forced to deploy ground troops if they wish to achieve their aim of destroying IS. From Vietnam onwards, it has been clear to the US that air strikes are not enough to achieve military and political objectives. Without control of the ground, such objectives will not be achieved in Iraq and Syria because if troops are ruled out, and without adequate Arab forces available, failure will be inevitable in this war. Moreover, air strikes have one significant limitation which is they run the risk of significantly increasing civilian casualties. While IS has some known strongholds (in Raqqa and Syria, for example) which could be neutralized by air strikes, most of their hideouts will not be so easily neutralized. Just last week, the CIA estimated that IS could have 31,150 fighters sprinkled across Iraq and Syria and it’s imperative we recognize that they operate in clandestine cells in many parts of Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere… The more the US and coalition bombs them from they sky, the further they go underground which would make the air strikes less effective while at the same time endangering more civilians and as the US and coalition have gone into this war on a ‘humanitarian’ cause, it would be counter-productive to endanger even more civilians.

“If the U.S. only uses air power, ISIS will eventually hide in the cities and the U.S. will be faced with causing a lot of civilian casualties to get the group out or kill its fighters,” said Dr. Ivan Eland, author of the “The Failure of Counterinsurgency: Why Hearts and Minds Are Seldom Won.”

On the other hand, it is also imperative that we realize the negative side of boots on the ground, prominently, the certain loss of life that would occur with troops being sent to fight in Iraq and Syria but also the expensive cost of funding ground troops. As of April 2014, more than 6800 American men and women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the US led a ground invasion in 2003. Likewise, the number of UK military deaths stands at 453. A Harvard study also found that the Iraq war of 2003 will ultimately cost taxpayers between $4 trillion to $6 trillion. Similarly, The cost of Britain’s interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan has reached almost £30bn – or £1,000 for every taxpayer in the country, a respected defence think-tank claims.£30bn would pay for… 1,464,000 more NHS nurses, 408,000 NHS consultants, 75% of the HS2 budget. Without saying, the deaths of military personnel represents the biggest downside of sending ground troops in to fight IS but the economic negatives are hard to ignore and the public certainly isn’t ignoring these negatives, hence why polls show more support for the against ground troops argument. However, recent beheading videos of hostages such as Alan Henning has sparked outrage amongst the public in both of these countries and has actually increased the support of ground troops being deployed as shown by the 5% increase in a recent UK poll.

In conclusion, although both Obama and Cameron are ruling out boots on the ground at this time, it’s certainly foreseeable that ground troops could be deployed. The US has already sent 1200 troops to the region to help train local rebels and forces fighting against IS but these forces are not fully prepared to successfully fight against IS and as a result, ground troops might be the only way of ensuring victory in this war against IS.

Charles Oakley

Does the United Kingdom have a legal and moral duty to ensure universal suffrage for the Hong Kong people?

As the former colonial power, does Britain have an obligation to ensure universal suffrage for the Hong Kong people?

The pro-democracy protests, now being coined as the ‘Umbrella Revolution’, that has gripped Hong Kong since late September has yet to produce any credible results since talks between protest leaders and the government reached an impasse after the territory’s deputy leader called off talks with student leaders scheduled for Friday. The phrase ‘Umbrella Revolution’ was first employed after protesters were forced to use umbrellas to defend themselves from tear gas used by the Hong Kong police. 

The world has been watching events unfold in Hong Kong and international governments have been unsure of how to comment as China issued a stark warning demanding that no countries should interfere in their internal affairs. For the UK, as the former colonial power until it handed control to China in 1997, these recent protests have presented a more troublesome problem. Naturally, as a celebrator of pro-democracy, the UK must stand behind the protesters pro-democracy stance but historically, and legally, to what extent should the UK get involved?  

First of all, it is imperative we look at the historical side of the agreement that handed control of Hong Kong over from the UK to China. The UK acquired Hong Kong’s territory from three separate treaties:

• Treaty of Nanking in 1842
• Treaty of Beijing in 1860
• Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory in 1898

These treaties gave the UK the control of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon (area south of Boundary Street), and the New Territories (area north of Boundary Street and south of the Shenzhen River, and outlying islands), respectively. However, these treaties merely served as a 99-year lease of the Hong Kong territory to the UK, not a permanent acquisition of what is now Hong Kong.

The first major step to the handover of Hong Kong from the UK back to China was the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed by the Prime Ministers of the People’s Republic of China and the United Kingdom governments on 19 December 1984 in Beijing. In the declaration, China agreed to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. And the UK government declared it would complete the handover on the 1st July 1997 (a promise which it kept) The vital part of the declaration was the “One country, two systems” principle which stated that Hong Kong would continue exercising a capitalist, sovereign, diplomatic system instead of the socialist system of China.

This is where it gets particularly complicated for the UK. The Chinese government promised both in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the mini constitution of Hong Kong (the Basic Law) that a democratic system would eventually be implemented in Hong Kong. After decades of delay and making excuses, in August of this year, the National People’s Congress of the PRC declared that the democratic, albeit not truly democratic, that Hong Kong would have is a system where Beijing would basically vet two to three candidates for voters to choose from. Also, the candidates would have to gain at more than 50 percent of nominations from a tiny electoral committee of 1200 people, most of whom are representatives of business interests in Hong Kong. The reason this breaks the promise China made was that this does not honour their agreement to resume the exercise of  universal suffrage in Hong Kong because the criteria these candidates would be vetted on was their patriotism to China which is effectively the Chinese government screening candidates and therefore not providing a truly democratic election for the people of Hong Kong.

Therefore, the problem presented is that Britain does have a moral and legal obligation to Hong Kong because it did sign a treaty in 1984 (the Sino-British Joint Declaration) that guaranteed Hong Kong’s core values and way of life, including freedom of speech and assembly for 50 years (until 2047). However, Britain has been almost completely silent on the issue and any little comments that have been offered have been so weak that frankly they have been worse than silence. So why hasn’t Britain condemned China for not fulfilling their promise? 

Firstly, talk to British business people and their resolve is to keep their heads down and hope the protests blow over so things can go back to how they were before thus maintaining good relations with China. It’s no secret that the British business elites have a strong influence on the government so it’s not surprising that the British government is not much different. China knows that they possess overwhelming military, economic and strategic superiority and essentially hold all the cards here. As such, when the Chinese government released a statement essentially threatening foreign countries to not intervene in their internal affairs, the British government adhered to that warning like bees to honey. It’s worth mentioning that John Major made a pledge before the handover that Britain would do everything possible to ensure that the terms of the joint declaration were adhered to. At the time of the handover, the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook, reiterated that Britain would use its clout to defend Hong Kong and its freedoms. Yet, there is no public condemnation of China’s blatant breaking of the promises set out in 1984 and I’d be willing to bet there hasn’t been any private one’s either. The protests in Hong Kong aren’t just about democracy, they’re about honouring a promise, something which the British government is unfortunately failing to do as we speak. 

The even more worrying side to this topic is whether or not things will escalate in Hong Kong and if it’s possible that we could see a contingency of something resembling that of the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 where China sent military troops in to crush protests taking place in Beijing at the time. We can notice China is very worried of the chance of the ideas of the Hong Kong protests spreading to mainland China as they have already banned popular social media services such as Instagram in an attempt to try and prevent this and it has to be noticed that there is a possibility things could take a more threatening turn in these protests.

So, in answer to the question posed in the title, Yes. Britain does, in my belief, have a moral and legal duty to Hong Kong to preserve universal suffrage for the Hong Kong people as promised under the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Charles Oakley

– Expect updates as the situation develops –