Britain Bombing Syria?

I don't think he has his own strategy. What he wanted was to hold off British airstrikes over Syria for a better planned, long term strategy, formulated by all interested parties, which might have half a hope of destroying ISIS. A coalition of all parties interested in defeating these terrorists. It's not as if the British have so far done nothing. They have been flying sorties over Iraq, and it is well known that increasing bombing missions into Syria alone will have no chance of bringing about an ISIS defeat. Corbyn knows that this just passed 'yes' vote, will bring misery on the scale seen in Paris, and more, to the streets of UK. Whilst that should not be a reason for sitting back and doing nothing, it is a reason for planning a complete strategy, rather than going off in a knee-jerk reaction to do what is comparatively little and is doing nothing that isn't being done already. There are now so many different forces fighting, for different aims, in Syria that it could easily end up as our next world war on a large scale. We have just seen what happened when Turkey shot down a Russian fighter plane. And the Russians and the other group of allies don't even have the same goal. The Russians are supporting Assad! And now, we are going in to bomb Syria, more innocent civilians will suffer too and will become refugees, whom this government will not even allow to enter Britain. Absolutely shameful.

He doesn't seem to have a strategy. The usual alternative to war is diplomacy, but how can you have a diplomatic conversation with an entity that has no diplomats? Let's face it, we can either drop bombs on them or not drop bombs on them as those are the only options. Not dropping bombs on them looks like we have no intention of doing anything whatsoever. Just making indignant noises cuts no ice with ISIS/ISIL.

Consider his other views - he has said he will never fire nuclear weapons if he is Prime Minister, so what's the point of having them under a future Labour government? Clearly he doesn't believe in going to war at all. Perhaps his strategy for a high-spending policy is to save money by disbanding the entire armed forces? Of course he's not going to say that but what he's saying is looking dangerously like it.

It should be interesting to read Hansard tomorrow. It publishes the names of all MPs who voted and whether they voted Yes or No, so we can see who from Labour disagrees with their own leader.

Corbyn's been overruled.

Britain has been Over-ruled.

War is too big to fail.

I think his idea was to after the money. If ISIS stopped being funded, it would degenerate to just another Syrian militia with no prospects.