The post you are reporting:
Courtesy of the Times.
What do the UK’s airstrikes against Syria mean? First, that it has stood with its allies against the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime to butcher its own people. Even amid the horror of the past seven years, chemical weapons — illegal under international law — are particularly indiscriminate. The second important feature is that Russia has been confronted over how it is acting in cyberspace, in social and state-controlled media, in Crimea and Ukraine, in its relationship with Nato, in the nerve agent attack in Salisbury and in its support for President Assad.
In terms of targets, the stocks of chemical weapons, the facilities that produce them and the aircraft that deliver them will have been top of the list. But to deter and prevent as well as punish, strikes may also take place against the leaders who chose to employ these weapons, command and control facilities, logistics, airfields and defences around chemical weapons. The technical challenges of identifying targets and the absence of surprise suggest that strikes may have to continue for some time for decisive results. If not, the response will only be “event management”, not a campaign to eradicate the threat to the remaining civilians resisting Assad’s regime. The strikes also mark a profound change to the way that the West approaches conflict in the 21st century. In Iraq and Afghanistan there was no real challenge for control of the air. In Syria the strikes must overcome the serious threat posed by comprehensive Russian-backed air defences. Western forces are used to flying drones freely and unlimited access to space-based communications and GPS. This does not apply here.
There is also the question as to how this use of force will be linked and subordinated to strategies for bringing the fighting in Syria to a rapid end and for resetting relations between the West and Russia. In the latter case, the use of force is always competitive and reciprocal and Russia may not confine its response to Syria. We should not be surprised if we detect major intrusions into US, UK and French cyberspace and social media. These risks are a feature of modern confrontation. in deploying the political will, the national moral courage and the military skill to prevent the further use of chemical weapons in Syria, we may find that what is right and necessary comes at a cost. We will have to be resilient or risk being treated as a strategic snowflake, with great consequences for our future security and prosperity.
General Sir Richard Barrons is former commander of Joint Forces Command.