DOCSLIB.ORG

Defining Remote Warfare: Security Cooperation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defining Remote Warfare: Security Cooperation Defining Remote Warfare: Security Cooperation Briefing Number 1 Tom Watts and Rubrick Biegon [Date] 0 This report has been commissioned by Remote Control, a project of the Network for Social Change hosted by the Oxford Research Group. The project examines changes in mili- tary engagement, with a focus on remote warfare. This form of intervention takes place be- hind the scenes or at a distance rather than on a traditional battlefield, often through drone strikes and air strikes from above, with Special Forces, intelligence agencies, private contrac- tors, and military training teams on the ground. Published by Remote Control, November 2017 Remote Control Oxford Research Group Development House 56-64 Leonard Street London EC2A 4LT United Kingdom +44 (0)207 549 0298 [email protected] http://remotecontrolproject.org The text of this report is made available under a Creative Commons license. Photographs remain the copyright of original holders. All citations must be credited to Remote Control, Tom Watts and Rubrick Biegon. This is a commissioned piece of research that does not necessarily reflect the views of the Remote Control Project. Cover image: US Africa Command (US Army photo by Spc. Zayid Ballesteros) About the Series The Remote Control Project is a research and when you see it”. Moreover, while we have policy unit analysing the rise of remote been focusing on the use of remote warfare warfare: the recent shift away from “boots on on today’s battlefield, we are also aware that the ground” deployments towards light- future changes in technology, especially the footprint military interventions abroad. rising importance of cyber and autonomous weapons, will have an impact on how we Among other factors, austerity, budget cuts, should understand remote warfare. war-weariness, and high political risk aversion in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan have all This series brings together experts to discuss played their part in making large-scale UK important aspects of remote warfare to military deployments less palatable to the UK provide some conceptual clarity. It will look at Parliament and public.1 current practice, including reports on security cooperation, intelligence sharing, private Alongside this, trends in military engagement security companies and drones, as well as such as the increasing use of drones and an looking to the future of warfare: addressing increased focus on counterterrorism and how offensive cyber operations and building local capacity – evident in, for autonomous weapons could change the example, the addition of defence engagement landscape of military engagement. as a core task of the Ministry of Defence – have allowed the UK to play a role in Over the course of the next year, we will countering threats posed by groups like ISIS, release bi-monthly briefings on these subjects Boko Haram, al-Qaeda and Al-Shabaab by experts in their field, with the eventual aim without deploying large numbers of its own of exploring common themes, risks and troops. opportunities presented by the evolving use of remote warfare. The emergence of approaches that seek to counter threats at a distance, without the deployment of large military forces, is an umbrella definition of remote warfare. With local troops engaged in the bulk of the frontline fighting, the UK’s role has, by and large, been a supporting one, providing training and equipment and, where necessary, providing air and intelligence support, and the assistance of UK Special Forces to bolster local troops. The focus of the Remote Control Project’s work has been on a strategic level, asking what the implications of these changes in military engagement are for the transparency, accountability and effectiveness of UK military engagement abroad.2 However, to ask these strategic questions, we have often had to put to one side the fact that remote warfare is not an uncontested term, and our broad definitions and analysis often hinge on an assumption that “you know it 2 About this briefing This briefing paper provides an overview of a central, but often overlooked, instrument of US remote warfare: security cooperation. In the briefing, security cooperation is defined as Department of Defense-managed programmes to train, equip and advise foreign security forces to fight alongside, or as surrogates for, American ‘boots on the ground’. Since the final years of the Bush administration, this feature of remote warfare has emerged as a central instrument in the US counterterrorism toolbox. In comparison to the kinetic face of remote warfare, however, it remains poorly understood. This briefing paper demonstrates the significance of security cooperation to remote warfare. It focuses on the use of security cooperation in US counterterrorism operations during the Obama presidency, with examples drawn from efforts to combat Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Al-Shabaab. It concludes by briefly considering the future of security cooperation under the Trump administration. Author bios Rubrick Biegon is an associate lecturer and research administrator in the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Kent. His research interests include US foreign policy, international security and inter-American relations. He is the author of US Power in Latin America: Renewing Hegemony (Routledge, 2017). Tom Watts is a PhD candidate in the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Kent. His research examines the Obama administration’s military response to al- Qaeda’s regional affiliates and the evolving pursuit of US material interests in the Global South. Tom is the current chair of the British International Studies Association’s Postgraduate Network, and the 2017 winner of the University of Kent Social Sciences Seminar Leader Teaching Prize. Contents Introduction 1 Security Cooperation and Assistance to ‘Build Partner Capacity’ 2 Security Cooperation as Remote Warfare 3 Security Cooperation in US Counterterrorism Policy Since 2006 5 Section 1206 Global Train and Equip 8 The Counterterrorism Partnership Fund (CTPF) 8 Security Cooperation in Practice: The Cases of AQAP and Al-Shabaab 9 AQAP 10 Al-Shabaab 11 Conclusion: The Future of US Security Cooperation 14 Endnotes 16 1 US counterterrorism operations in Introduction countries where it is not at war.6 Security cooperation, in comparison, Since 9/11, the United States (US) has remains understudied as an instrument of engaged in a variety of efforts to build the remote warfare. Academics and capacity of foreign partners to address policymakers have recently begun to security-related threats. As a major facet address the topic in greater detail.7 The of this endeavour, the Department of focus of much of the recent debate has Defense (DOD) has developed a broad been on measuring its effectiveness in spectrum of bilateral and multilateral meeting stated security objectives. The military activities under the rubric of utility of security cooperation in enabling ‘security cooperation’. This became a successive administrations to strike at central instrument in both the Bush and transnational terrorist groups without Obama administrations’ counterterrorism recourse to US ‘boots on the ground’ has toolbox. The US has engaged extensively not been subject to the same volume of on the frontline of conflict across the critical discussion. This omission is Global South to build the military capacity important given that, on both sides of the of partner states whose internal security Atlantic, the practices of remote warfare was threatened by transnational terrorist have raised serious questions about the groups. This, US policymakers hoped, accountability and legality of Western would enable partnering security forces to military intervention. In the case of fight alongside, and in some cases as security cooperation, US-trained military surrogates for, American ground forces. leaders have overthrown democratically As Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated elected governments (in Mali in 2012, for in 2007, ‘[a]rguably the most important example).8 Whilst a full accounting of military component in the War on Terror these issues is beyond the scope of this is not the fighting we do ourselves, but briefing paper, effective, accountable and how well we enable and empower our sustainable approaches to security partners to defend and govern 3 cooperation are worthy of further themselves’. investigation. Remote warfare constitutes a ‘strategy of This briefing paper contributes to closing countering threats at a distance, without the security cooperation ‘gap’ in the the deployment of large military forces’. It existing debates on remote warfare by generally involves a ‘combination of drone providing an introduction to this critical strikes and air strikes from above, knitted tool of US statecraft. It begins by situating together by the deployment of special security cooperation within the broader forces, intelligence operatives, private phenomenon of remote warfare. It contractors, and military training teams 4 distinguishes security cooperation from on the ground’. Much has been written related practices of security assistance in on the kinetic face of remote warfare – the context of wider efforts to build the particularly drone strikes and Special capacity of partners to address security Operations Forces (SOF) kill-capture 5 threats. It also documents security raids. Attention has also been given to cooperation’s increased role within US the growing use of private military and counterterrorism -
Load more

Recommended publications
  • War Prevention Works 50 Stories of People Resolving Conflict by Dylan Mathews War Prevention OXFORD • RESEARCH • Groupworks 50 Stories of People Resolving Conflict
    OXFORD • RESEARCH • GROUP war prevention works 50 stories of people resolving conflict by Dylan Mathews war prevention works OXFORD • RESEARCH • GROUP 50 stories of people resolving conflict Oxford Research Group is a small independent team of Oxford Research Group was Written and researched by researchers and support staff concentrating on nuclear established in 1982. It is a public Dylan Mathews company limited by guarantee with weapons decision-making and the prevention of war. Produced by charitable status, governed by a We aim to assist in the building of a more secure world Scilla Elworthy Board of Directors and supported with Robin McAfee without nuclear weapons and to promote non-violent by a Council of Advisers. The and Simone Schaupp solutions to conflict. Group enjoys a strong reputation Design and illustrations by for objective and effective Paul V Vernon Our work involves: We bring policy-makers – senior research, and attracts the support • Researching how policy government officials, the military, of foundations, charities and The front and back cover features the painting ‘Lightness in Dark’ scientists, weapons designers and private individuals, many of decisions are made and who from a series of nine paintings by makes them. strategists – together with Quaker origin, in Britain, Gabrielle Rifkind • Promoting accountability independent experts Europe and the and transparency. to develop ways In this United States. It • Providing information on current past the new millennium, has no political OXFORD • RESEARCH • GROUP decisions so that public debate obstacles to human beings are faced with affiliations. can take place. nuclear challenges of planetary survival 51 Plantation Road, • Fostering dialogue between disarmament.
    [Show full text]
  • WOULD AIR STRIKES WORK? Understanding Iran’S Nuclear Programme and the Possible Consequences of a Military Strike
    WOULD AIR STRIKES WORK? Understanding Iran’s nuclear programme and the possible consequences of a military strike Frank Barnaby With a foreword by Hans Blix BRIEFING PAPER MARCH 2007 Published by Oxford Research Group, 2007 Oxford Research Group Development House 56 - 64 Leonard Street London, EC2A 4LT United Kingdom Copyright © Oxford Research Group, 2007 Some rights reserved. This paper is licensed under a Creative Commons licence that allows copy and distribution for non-profit use, provided the author and ORG are attributed properly and the work is not altered in any way. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ for full details. Please contact Oxford Research Group if you would like to translate this report. About the Author Frank Barnaby is Nuclear Issues Consultant to Oxford Research Group. He is a nuclear physicist by training and worked at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston between 1951-57. He was on the senior scientific staff of the Medical Research Council when a university lecturer at University College London (1957-67). He was Executive Secretary of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affaires in the late 1960s and Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) from 1971-81.His books include: ‘The Invisible Bomb’ (Tauris, 1989), ‘The Gaia Peace Atlas’ (Pan, 1989), ‘The Automated Battlefield’ (Sidgwick & Jackson, 1987), ‘Star Wars’ (Fourth Estate, 1987), ‘Future Warfare’ (Michael Joseph, 1986) and ‘The Role and Control of Military Force in the 1990s’. Acknowledgements Oxford Research Group gratefully acknowledges the support of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation and our many supporters and Sustainers for making the publication of this report possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Endless War the Global War on Terror and the New Bush Administration
    Endless War The global war on terror and the new Bush Administration Paul Rogers Oxford Research Group March 2005 Endless War: The global war on terror and the new Bush Administration Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 The US Political Context 4 Neoconservatism and Christian Zionism 5 Responding to 9/11 7 The Status of al-Qaida 8 Israel, Palestine and the War on Terror 12 Iran and Syria 13 Prospects and Alternatives 15 Notes 16 2 OXFORD RESEARCH GROUP Endless War: The global war on terror and the new Bush Administration Executive Summary Three and a half years after 11th September and two years after the termination of the Saddam Hussein regime, the “global war on terror” has no end in sight. Al-Qaida and its affiliates remain active and effective, with a stronger support base and a higher intensity of attacks than before 11th September. The United States is embroiled in a conflict in Iraq that has already cost over 25,000 lives. Even so, the second Bush administration is likely to strengthen its pursuit of a New American Century, with little prospect of changes in policy towards Iraq or al-Qaida and the possibility of an extension of its Middle East policy to a confrontation with Iran. In Washington, the neoconservative agenda is strengthened by the rise of Christian Zionism, making it less likely that the administration will encourage Israel to accept a fully viable two-state solution to its confrontation with the Palestinians. It may be argued that many aspects of US security policy are counterproductive, but this is likely to have little impact in Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Enacting Global Transformation
    Enacting Global Transformation A Collaborative Initiative of the Centre of International Studies, University of Oxford In Partnership with Theatre of Transformation Academy WHY, Why Now, and So What: The Motivation, Purpose and Intended Impact Purpose: to bring humanity and creativity to the responses of scholars, policy makers, crisis-affected communities and the public to crises of security and governance, and stimulate new ideas for paradigm change. Why: We stand at the precipice of what could be the most perilous period in human history since the 1930s. We are called now to ‘not merely tinker with piecemeal reform of governance structures that leave the current paradigm of governance intact, but fundamentally… redefine the paradigm of power itself.’1 This collaborative initiative responds to this imperative by combining transformative theory, practice and policy with the arts. Why now: The dire global climate of violent conflict, divisive national politics, and severely strained international relations we face today requires innovative, effective responses grounded in humanity and ethics. The intended impact is to foster renewed thinking, research, policies and public reactions to global crises of war and governance, as evidenced through creative research, initiatives and collaborations to enact global transformation. This initiative does not seek piecemeal responses to individual global crises. Rather, it evokes critical rethinking of prevailing paradigms of power underlying today’s intertwined crises of war and governance, and fosters humane and creative thinking to shape new paradigms of power for politics and IR. WHAT FOR: Origins and Objectives This project builds on previous research projects conducted at CIS since 2009, on the responsibility to protect, culture, religion and governance.
    [Show full text]
  • GA Background Paper
    GA United Nations General Assembly Committee: United Nations General Assembly (GA) Topic: The question of implementing a standing military force within the United Nations system Written by: Bárbara Martínez, Karen Soto and Camila Mota I. Committee Background The General Assembly (GA) is the primary deliberative, decision-making and representative body of the United Nations (UN). The General Assembly has many vital functions, including the admission, removal or expulsion of UN member states. The UN Charter summarizes its key purposes as “promot[ing] international co-operation in the economic, social, cultural, educational, and health fields, and assists in the consciousness of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” (Whiting, WEF, 2018). Currently, the GA consists of 193 member states and two non-member observer states. The committee’s headquarters are located in the UN Building in New York City. The General Assembly is responsible for overseeing the budget of the UN, selecting the non-permanent members of the Security Council, voting on the Secretary-General of the United Nations, making recommendations in the form of resolutions and establishing subsidiary organizations (Charter, UN, 2020). II. Topic Information a) History of the Topic According to the United Nations, peacekeepers are specially trained individuals who “provide security and the political and peacebuilding support to help countries make the difficult, early transition from conflict to peace” (Thematic Issues, UN, 2019). All UN peacekeeping operations are governed by rules set out in the UN Charter and are approved of by the United Nations Security Council. The role of peacekeepers has evolved since the UN’s first peacekeeping mission in 1960.
    [Show full text]
  • EAST of SUEZ, WEST from HELMAND: BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE and the NEXT SDSR Richard Reeve
    Oxford Research Group | December 2014 Oxford Research Group Briefing – December 2014 EAST OF SUEZ, WEST FROM HELMAND: BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE AND THE NEXT SDSR Richard Reeve The formal signature on 5 December of a new defence cooperation agreement between the UK and Bahrain, including the formalisation of a ‘permanent’ Royal Navy forward operating base in Manama, is the latest step in the current UK Government’s plans to reconsolidate a military presence in the Persian Gulf. Of little significance in itself, the upgraded Bahrain naval base and the timing of its announcement are important reflections of British strategic thinking in the context of withdrawal from Afghanistan, intervention in the messy ideological and proxy wars of the wider Middle East, and the looming Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), due after the May 2015 election. East of Suez The UK’s security relationship with Bahrain is not new. A British protectorate, along with all the other southern Gulf emirates, for a century up to 1971, the UK only scaled back its naval and air bases there in its post-1967 withdrawal from ‘East of Suez’. Since 1980, when the Iran-Iraq war occasioned the deployment of the Armilla Patrol to protect friendly (oil) shipping, the Royal Navy has continuously had at least one frigate or destroyer in the Gulf, and often many more. Bahrain is their usual regional base and is home to an indefinite deployment of four British minesweepers, alongside the much larger US Navy presence. While the US clearly eclipsed the UK as the dominant external power in the Gulf in the 1970s, British military influence has remained entrenched among elites.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Direction Forthe Democratic Left
    compassDIRECTION FOR THE DEMOCRATIC LEFT thinkpieces SUSTAINABLE Peace & Security Today By James Kemp, Oxford Research Group compasscontents Sustainable Peace & Security Introduction Trust in security The dominant approach to security Integrating policy Global threats in the 21st century Climate change Marginalisation of the majority world Resource competition Global militarisation A window of opportunity “Following the price hikes of 1973-74, Pentagon planners prioritised the development of a capability to deploy military forces to maintain control over the Persian Gulf region to secure the supply of oil and deny competitors control or influence in the region”. Compass publications are intended to create real debate and discussion around the key issues facing the democratic left - however the views expressed in this publication are not a statement of Compass policy. compass Sustainable Peace and Security Today By James Kemp, Oxford Research Group, November 2006 Compass Thinkpiece 18 Introduction This Thinkpiece outlines how and why a security strategy fit for the 21st century would differ from the approach that dominates today. The dominant approach is pre-occupied with maintaining key elements of the status quo and controlling pressure for change.This approach to security is not only failing, it is also incapable of effectively tackling some of the most important threats we face today. Another security strategy, one that stands a greater chance of securing international and therefore UK peace and security, would begin by reassessing
    [Show full text]
  • MAPPING the DEVELOPMENT of AUTONOMY in WEAPON SYSTEMS Vincent Boulanin and Maaike Verbruggen
    MAPPING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTONOMY IN WEAPON SYSTEMS vincent boulanin and maaike verbruggen MAPPING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTONOMY IN WEAPON SYSTEMS vincent boulanin and maaike verbruggen November 2017 STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE SIPRI is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. GOVERNING BOARD Ambassador Jan Eliasson, Chair (Sweden) Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar (Indonesia) Dr Vladimir Baranovsky (Russia) Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria) Espen Barth Eide (Norway) Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger (Germany) Dr Radha Kumar (India) The Director DIRECTOR Dan Smith (United Kingdom) Signalistgatan 9 SE-169 72 Solna, Sweden Telephone: +46 8 655 97 00 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.sipri.org © SIPRI 2017 Contents Acknowledgements v About the authors v Executive summary vii Abbreviations x 1. Introduction 1 I. Background and objective 1 II. Approach and methodology 1 III. Outline 2 Figure 1.1. A comprehensive approach to mapping the development of autonomy 2 in weapon systems 2. What are the technological foundations of autonomy? 5 I. Introduction 5 II. Searching for a definition: what is autonomy? 5 III. Unravelling the machinery 7 IV. Creating autonomy 12 V. Conclusions 18 Box 2.1. Existing definitions of autonomous weapon systems 8 Box 2.2. Machine-learning methods 16 Box 2.3. Deep learning 17 Figure 2.1. Anatomy of autonomy: reactive and deliberative systems 10 Figure 2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition Theoretical and Historical Perspectives
    Research Report C O R P O R A T I O N MICHAEL J. MAZARR, JONATHAN BLAKE, ABIGAIL CASEY, TIM MCDONALD, STEPHANIE PEZARD, MICHAEL SPIRTAS Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition Theoretical and Historical Perspectives he most recent U.S. National Security KEY FINDINGS Strategy is built around the expectation ■ The emerging competition is not generalized but likely to of a new era of intensifying international be most intense between a handful of specific states. Tcompetition, characterized by “growing political, economic, and military competitions” ■ The hinge point of the competition will be the relation- confronting the United States.1 The new U.S. ship between the architect of the rules-based order (the United States) and the leading revisionist peer competitor National Defense Strategy is even more blunt that is involved in the most specific disputes (China). about the nature of the emerging competition. “We are facing increased global disorder, ■ Global patterns of competition are likely to be complex and diverse, with distinct types of competition prevailing characterized by decline in the long-standing 2 in different issue areas. rules-based international order,” it argues. “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, ■ Managing the escalation of regional rivalries and conflicts is now the primary concern in U.S. national is likely to be a major focus of U.S. statecraft. security.”3 The document points to the ■ Currently, the competition seems largely focused on “reemergence of long-term, strategic competition status grievances or ambitions, economic prosperity, by what the National Security Strategy classifies technological advantage, and regional influence. as revisionist powers.”4 It identifies two ■ The competition is likely to be most intense and per- countries as potential rivals: China and Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford Research Group Consultation Aide-Memoire
    Copyright © 2007 Oxford Research Group Do not quote without the author’s permission Oxford Research Group Consultation Charney Manor, Charney Bassett, Oxfordshire Tuesday 13 th –Thursday 15 th March 2007 An investigation into the: “Regional and global security implications of a British decision on replacing its strategic nuclear weapon system” Aide-Mémoire This Aide-Mémoire sets out to identify key themes raised by participants during the intensive information exchange and dialogue that took place over two days. It is based on brief formal presentations made by invited speakers, and on notes made by recorders during extended informal discussion periods which followed these presentations. It therefore does not represent views or address issues which were not raised during the proceedings, nor does it embody a consensus of the views of all participants, except where indicated. We invited all participants to comment on the first draft of this Aide-Mémoire, and have made every effort to accommodate comments received. The meeting was held under the Chatham House rule, which means that contributors are not identified by name. The final text is the sole responsibility of Oxford Research Group, and not a formal agreed communiqué from all participants. 1 Copyright © 2007 Oxford Research Group Do not quote without the author’s permission The key questions, and particular points of interest that emerged from the subject areas covered in the programme are set out below. One of the recurrent themes that emerged throughout was the necessity for trust and confidence building and the importance of “stepping into the shoes” of an adversary, in order to view the security environment from a different perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • No Such Thing As a Perfect Partner the Challenges of “By, With, and Through”
    No Such Thing as a Perfect Partner The Challenges of “By, With, and Through” By Emily Knowles n recent military campaigns against violent non-state actors, many states have reduced the risk to their own forces by conducting airstrikes or supporting allies rather than placing their own forces on the ground.1 Small teams of special operation forces (SOF) and military advisers, as well as military training Iteams and intelligence support units, have supported host-nation security forces in doing the bulk of front-line fighting against groups like al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, and al-Qaeda. In some theaters, such as the campaign against the Islamic State, this has extended to include intensive air and intelligence, surveillance, and recon- naissance (ISR) support. In other theaters, support may be limited to training and equipping local partners without conducting joint operations—like the support that the UK provides to Kenyan forces through the British Peace Support Team (Africa). This is a trend that the Oxford Research Group calls “remote warfare,”2 although it goes by many other names, including “surrogate war,”3 “light-footprint,”4 “low-intensity war,”5 and “by, with, and through.”6 This article draws on field research conducted in Afghanistan (2017), Iraq (2017), Mali, (2018) and Kenya (2018) as well as a series of expert roundtables held in London between 2017–2019, and interviews held with militaries, diplomats, and civil society in Mali (2019) and Somalia (2016–2018). The purpose of the effort was to identify changes in military engagement following the drawdowns of large international military oper- ations in Iraq (2011) and Afghanistan (2014) and to highlight the strategic implications of a shift towards remote warfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Intervention in Syria: Implications for Western Engagement
    Global Security Briefing – OCTOBER 2015 Russia’s Intervention in Syria: Implications for Western Engagement Paul Rogers & Richard Reeve Summary The war in Syria has become dramatically more complex since the summer, with Turkey and Russia becoming more directly engaged and several western states extending their bombing campaigns. Russia’s direct intervention seeks tactical gains for the Assad regime in northwest Syria in support of its strategic goal of a pro-Russian political settlement to the conflict. Such action makes further Islamic State advances more likely in Syria. Further escalation of British military intervention in Syria would also be likely to fuel the conflict. Introduction Since September there have been four significant developments as the war against Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria intensifies: • Russia has changed the nature of its intervention in Syria by deploying combat aircraft and up to 2,000 support personnel and weapons systems. • More western states are extending the air war from Iraq to Syria, with the probability that there will be a vote in the UK parliament to support British involvement in Syria. • The US has changed its strategy of assisting non-jihadist opposition forces in Syria from training them to sending more arms and ammunition. • Revised US intelligence estimates of IS strength suggests that international support for IS is more than compensating for its losses in spite of the intensity of the coalition air strikes. Together with the post-July involvement of Turkey in air strikes against both IS and its Kurdish adversaries in Syria, these developments greatly increase the complexity of the war there.
    [Show full text]