UK Military Operations in Syria and Iraq Committee Select Committees

We will again be having to beat a fairly speedy retreat just after a

quarter past 11 because of the need for colleagues to get down to the

chamber to secure their places for Prime Minister's Questions.

is my pleasure to introduce this session of our enquiry into UK

military operations in Syria and Iraq. We have three panellists

representing a wide range of views, all from a media background and I

would be grateful if you could introduce yourselves and see a

sentence or two about your background and your connection with

the events we will be discussing. I am Anthony Lloyd, a foreign

correspondent to the Times. I have worked there for 23 years. I have

reported numerous conflicts around the world. I started reporting in

Syria in early 2012. I took about 15 trips to rebel held areas. I have

reported extensively from Iraq since 2003 and was the last 15 months ago.

Former diplomatic editor at Sky News, I have been to Iraq and Syria

12 times. Currently writing books. Patrick Cockburn, I work for the

Independent. I first went to Iraq in 1977 and I have been going back

frequently ever since. Syria I visited frequently before and during

the current conflict. I have written a book called Chaos and caliphate

which is coming out. Before that I wrote a book on the rise of Islamic

State. Would you say has been the impact of the UK road in the

international coalition and in particular the extension of UK air

strikes to Syria? I don't think a great deal, partly because British

participation is militarily limited. Somewhat more extensive in Iraq and

stop I think it is worth bearing in mind, whatever everyone is saying

about Syria, what happens in Syria is largely determined by what

happens in Iraq and vice versa. The terror strikes have had an effect.

Islamic State cannot hold fixed positions against a hostile airpower

overhead with partners on the ground. We saw this when Islamic

State was trying to take territory from the Kurds. They lost 2000. The

whole of call Barney is smashed to bits. It seemed to me about 70% of

it is gone. Much of the city has gone. I don't think it is enough,

and you were near enough, to do more than we can Islamic State.

Because what happened in Syrian cities, you have a five story

building, four stories have civilians, the first floor has

Islamic State fighters, unless you are going to bring down the whole

building, you will not eliminate them. So Islamic State continues, it

still has a powerful military force, it still has finances. These have

been weakened but they are still there. Its enemies still remain

divided with differing goals. There are animated things that your power

can achieve, but there are limitations to it. -- and Ahmed of

things. Could I ask you to differentiate between where relevant

between Iraq and Syria? Because there are clear differences in the

effort being made in those countries. I think it's a limited

effect militarily but important politically. I think the overall

effect is the UK not to be playing that role, it diminishes the sum and

it means somebody else has to take the burden. Politically it is

important. We should not underestimate British expertise and

the missions that have flown. There are hundreds, and they do not always

end in kinetic activity, it is called. I do not think we should

underestimate the importance of the British militarily and politically

on a large basis. That crosses the border and I always felt it was odd

that a plane had to stop militarily with an artificial border, anyway,

and the world was about to placate in, apparently, the way the vote

went last year and it hasn't. Air was about credibility and the

problems that would have been connected to the UK not participated

in air strikes, that would have been greater in terms of political

credibility and the UK's role as a credible ally within the coalition.

The actual minimal nature UK air strikes have not had a huge impact

on the battlefield. There are periods angles to it. The presence

of British special forces in Iraq has had greater coupling effect

because they can call on other people's aircraft. Overall, the

effects of air power on Islamic State has been very significant over

the past few months and they have lost up to 40% of the territory they

originally held. In which country? Over role, particularly common in

Iraq. Particularly in Iraq. I do not know what the protected is in Syria

but the trend is the same in Syria. -- percentage. Losing ground. That

is not the solution, it is a trend. Before you come in, I want to take

up something you said earlier, you said something about air power in

support of forces on the ground. There are forces on the ground,

quite clearly, we have identified them in Iraq and there is a big air

effort by the British in support of those forces on the ground. It is

harder to identify forces on the ground in Syria. Do you or your

colleagues, once they have come in, do you have any evidence that the

strikes that the United Kingdom has been making in Syria have been in

support of identifiable formations or forces on the ground as opposed

to strikes against individuals or against static storage facilities,

for example. I do not know how far they are going with the ground

forces fighting Islamic State in alliance, so to speak, with the US

led coalition of which Britain is part, the Syrian Kurds. There have

only been 232 air strikes by non-US coalition forces, minimal compared

to the Americans. I think there are a few in support of the Kurds, but

otherwise not. One point that Anthony was making about losing 40%,

we need to bear in mind, these maps that we see in newspapers and on

television, showing 40% loss or gain or something, these are countries

that a large portion of them are desert or semi it doesn't make much

and if you lose a percentage here or there, it is really publishing

centres account. The military pressure on Islamic State is partly

the Kurds, partly the Syrian army. You can see this. People were

denying the Syrian army and the Russians were fighting Islamic State

but it is really, to my men, propaganda. As you can see it,

Palmyra, which was recaptured not so long ago, and Alice well known place

-- ate less well known airbase which Islamic State had been besieging for

one year, in both cases the Syrian army was able to take these places

with air support from the Russians. Russian and Syrian air power has a

rather different purpose, which is to separate the civilian from the

fighters. A classic counterinsurgency tactic, were you

born everything. I have no evidence of the British air strikes in Syria

in support of specific groups. I hear what Patrick said about a race

and desert but there is no doubt about it, significant at large

population centres that were held by cases are no longer in Isis's

control. Just out of that, colleagues will follow up on some

other strands but, from your perception, is there more that the

UK should be doing? And if so, what? I think we talk about this in

military terms but this is a very, located gorilla Mac political war,

things that we should be doing. -- gorilla war. We need to understand

what is happening there. If one is thinking how do weaken and eliminate

Islamic State, I think the most important thing is to ensure it is

encircled. It almost is now. With most of the circuit board are being

taken by the Syrian Kurds -- Turkish border. There is quite a small gap

between the river and Aleppo. I think politically, Britain should be

doing everything it can, militarily, to make sure the gap is closed. That

is the route that terrorists take, they're going to come here and to

Europe. This is very important to clause that and it was has been

important. When one looks at this whole crisis, it is insoluble, too

complicated, but this prevents people of thinking of concrete

solutions to concrete problems like that. I think they should increase

support to the Kurds. The ivy growing forces for the Raqqa

operation. The Russians, partly retaking Palmyra has made that thing

come closer. Raqqa will fall at some point. The UK should be supporting

the Kurds. The UK should also be doing a lot of homework. Once Isis

is defeated, they will spring up elsewhere, Isis Mark two. I hope the

people who look at these things are up to speed with jabba al nusra

because I think they are longer threat to Syria his Isis. Jabba al

nusra is a long-term entity in Syria, yes. I agree. There is

opportunity for a long-term solution. It can bolster its

existing support of rescue workers inside Syria. It supports and helps

train and equip the guys who grub around in the rubble, barrel bomb

buildings, trying to pull people out. It can offer more places to

Syrian refugees. It can look at revising its special forces

deployments, which so far very limited to Iraq. It should be aware

that the political solution and military activity are quite out of

step at the moment. I just want to ask you for your immediate reaction

to the story that was in the media yesterday, the headline for the

Times, for example, President Assad has been secretly collaborating with

Isis, defectors tapers reveal. Patrick, you give us an example that

President Assad has taken Palmyra and another town. It is suggested in

these leaked, handwritten notes that in fact there was some sort of

collusion between President Assad and Isis. On that manoeuvre. Do you

believe that has any basis? I thought these documents and I am

very dubious about it. First of all, some of them have selective quotes.

Some of these documents have been released in different places.

Saying, artillery has not been moved from Palmyra to other areas,

omitting the bit that they have been moved to another place, near where

the Government positions are. There are arguments about, yes, there is

trade between the two but in all this area and Iraq and Syria, the

smuggling areas of the world, yes, if you're in the Syrian Kurdish

area, you find a lot of the stuff has come from Beirut because Islamic

State wants to charge $300 per truck coming through, they are very short

of money, so there is trade. Illicit trade. It does not mean political

combination. You know, then you can produce an argument, is it an

President Assad's interest to fight Islamic state? In some extent, yes,

that means the rest of the world is hostile to Islamic state, the

alternative to him. He did not create that situation. He is taking

advantage of opportunities. I think this sort of... Basically, I think

that using these documents for partisan political points, I do not

think the evidence is there. If you look at where the fighting is, east

of Aleppo, around Palmyra, it is privately obvious that President

Assad is fighting, Syrian army is fighting Islamic State. This

material is supposed to have come from the same people who supplied

Sky News, your former bosses, what you make of it? I am agnostic. I

remain to be convinced. It is widely believed throughout the Middle East

that is the case and they do not rule it out. What is the case?

Sorry, the Government has always colluded with various, including

jabba al nusra, Islamic -- Islamist organisations. They said this would

happen, the Islamists would come to the forefront, so it's in their

interest to promulgate that. I am agnostic because I think it is

plausible but I have not seen the evidence and, for example, the

artillery pieces were used as evidence that when they removed them

from Palmeiro, as the Syrians were advancing, -- Palmyra, it was

evidence presented that they have been moved to Lee Mack told to move

their artillery out of Palmyra. That sounds like common sense will stop

if you are making a strategic withdrawal, they knew they were

massed in formations, they did not want to get hit, of course they ran

away, another word for withdrawal, as the army knows, I do not see it

as proof of collusion. I only see it as potential collusion. But it is

equally likely that they withdrew tactically. There was certainly some

fierce fighting around Palmyra and a bulk of the President Assad regime

military power was supplied by Hezbollah and Russian special forces

teams, some of whom killed Russians and Palmyra. I am not saying that is

evidence against any deal but if there was a deal, there was also

some very fierce fighting. As for the overall picture, both things are

true. President Assad is in a fierce fight with Islamic State. The Assad

regime had a long-term evidentially proven relationship with jihadi

organisations that are based in Syria. As far back as 2003 and

before. We are seeing most recently, couple of years ago, released by the

resume that numerous Islamist prisoners from jail so that they can

return to the rank of the revolution and change the shape of the

revolution. It suited their resume to do that. That was one of the

questions I was going to ask. Cross that one of my list of things I

wanted to ask you. I wonder if you could differentiate between the

future and the potential capability in terms of Iraq and Syria because I

am wondering about the ability for ground forces and air power to

combine to actually defeat Daesh in both countries. Is it enough? We

cannot do it with air power alone but I wonder if the ground forces

are also willing and are they actually able watermark?

There are strong indications the Iraqi army has reconstituted itself.

It has not performed well. That does not bode well for the operation on

Mosul, nevertheless, in the long term, they will be successful but it

will take an American air power and the Kurds coming from north. Rack, I

think as a better chance of falling sooner. Again, it will not happen

with the support of the UK, the USA and the coalition. It would be

impossible without that as you know, it is politically impossible to get

public support for ground operations, proper ground

operations, by the UK, other than special forces. I do not see the two

countries as separate. They are entirely connected. If you squeeze

rack, people will go to Mosul, if you squeeze Mosul, people will go to

rack. Iraqi special forces retake Mosul. I

was up and down the front and what strikes me about military formations

is that there are not many of them. The Iraqi army used to be famous for

both battalions, the money goes to the Defence Ministry and the

officers. I think that is certainly still happening. I know Iraq as a

National Security Council, some months ago the army people came and

wanted more money for salaries and they were told not another sense

unless you tell us how many soldiers you have got. They were back it with

better with 36,000 less soldiers. That is illustrative of the general

situation. The Kurds are the same. There aren't that number on the

front line. You can have a genuine injury in Ramada -- Ramadi. Most of

Ramadi is in ruins. Sancha, the Kurds did the same thing. These are

places where the military action is from the air. The consequence is the

place is devastated. This really isn't a victory in any full sense

and Islamic State is reverting to guerrilla tactics. They are now --

not fighting to the last man in these places. The extent to which

these victories are going to need to the collapse of the Islamic State I

think has been exaggerated. We should also prepare yourselves for

how bad Mosul will probably be. Stalingrad is bandied around for a

much by the media and elsewhere but Mosul really has the potential to be

really quite catastrophic given how the fight will go both from the

defenders and the attackers. Mosul will be pretty bloody awful.

Military victory is usually only possible when there is a confluence

of circumstances, such as airpower. Either a concentration of a coherent

group, semi-coherent group, like the Iraqi army, or an ethnic disparity

between something like a Kurdish area in Syria where it is easier to

drive out the Islamic State. Where are those circumstances do not make

them it is far more difficult. One of the problems, I think rack is

much more likely to go before Mosul. The Syrian Kurds are the most

effective ground force against Islamic State in the region. The

effectiveness outside Kurdish areas would be limited. In Mosul I cannot

see anything happening quickly because the forces gathered around

Mosul are so desperate. You have the Iraqi army. They have not performed

well. You have the Kurdish Depeche Mode, the KTP and other groupings as

well that answer to slightly different commanders. Then you have

Shia groups, some of which are Iranian backed, some of which are

not Iranian backed. There are all sorts of different foreign interests

in and around Mosul and a huge population. No one is talking about

what happens after the date Mosul is recaptured or how indeed Kurdish

regional government could support an influx of hundreds of thousands more

refugees when it cannot pay its own government workers their salaries.

The political situation is so public image. From the Kurdish point of

view, although they are the main ground forces against Islamic State

backed by US and British airpower, they wonder what will happen

supposing they defeat Islamic State because at the moment everybody

loves them because they are fighting Islamic State, but if Islamic State

goes down then they are vulnerable to what the Turks do to resurgent

powers in Damascus and Baghdad. It isn't necessarily in their interests

to take Mosul work for this war to end any time soon. Would you like to

comment on that? One thing I have wondered about, you have all cited

the Kurds as the fiercest and best organised fighters, but what of the

long-term consequences of the backing of those Kurdish movements?

The genie is out of the bottle. Kurdistan National Assembly never

went away but it is now back on the front burner. They will want a

report after this. They are dysfunctional themselves between

Iraq and the two entities within Iraq. Long-term, I am thinking a

federal Syria and federal Iraq. That might not be politically so the

bowl. At some point, when we play our minimal political role with the

Kurds and tell them what it is that we would agreed afterwards as part

of the negotiations, I think we should be rewarding them somehow I

doubt it will be with the state and so managing expectations might be

useful because there is a potential for, once Islamic State is speaking,

there is the potential for Syria being partially back together in a

federal state but the fighting could still continue because the Kurds

will not get what they want from this. They stood on the sidelines

for a long time seeing you guys get on with it and only when they were

forced to did they move and they are not moving for a unitary Syria, they

are moving for a unitary Kurdistan have some form. Again, we have to

make our decisions about how far we could that. You have all pointed out

the difficulties in taking Mosul, is it important in the fight against

Islamic State to take Mosul? One thing the Islamic State has is that

it is a state. Its ideology is we have instead. Other people have

talked about a caliphate, we have established a real Islamic State.

This is a big ideological blow if that state goes down. They are

different from other types of organisations like Al-Qaeda.

Secondly, it is important in terms of security. The terrorist attacks

we have seen in Brussels, Paris, potentially here, what makes them

different from terrorist attacks in the past is that they do have the

resources of what is a de facto organised state behind them. Money,

expertise, so forth. For both those reasons it is very important to

eliminate Islamic State and the most important element in that is Mosul.

That is what put them on the order stage, when they captured Mosul in

2014. Troops on the ground, their capacity to take Mosul might be

omitted, does that mean the West has to do more? The Americans are

pushing for a quick attack on Mosul but they are finding they have been

drawn in more and more because an Iraqi division has moved east of

Mosul. When it came to fighting, it wasn't to be found the Americans

lost one or two people and so the British official attitude as I

understand it is much more cautious. Islamic State has not really been

fighting, it has been fighting for Ramadi, but not to the last man like

that Barney. In Mosul they will fight everywhere and they will see

the city levelled before they give it up. The blow to them is equally

political, militarily and psychological. They introduced a

currency. When you lose that psychological idea that you are a

state... I knew Hamish working quite well. He used the command a Nato

brigade. He is utterly convinced there will be mass use of chemical

weapons in the fight for Mosul. I don't know that. Mr Gordon believes

that. You cannot just surround Islamic State and leave them alone.

They are in perpetual metastases. They are treating children all the

time. They grow, they expand. Mosul is the seed of the caliphate, Mosul

must be retaken. There is an Armageddon scenario for Mosul, but

in the Middle East, it works in a different way. Surround Mosul, you

get a lot of dissatisfied local tribes, give them money and they

sort out their own problems. It may well be that there are not that many

Islamic State members. I don't know. You might find that if there was

enough incentive, which there is not at the moment, then people in Mosul

might be more inclined to take up arms themselves against Islamic

State. There is not that incentive at the moment and I should think

people in Mosul are very worried about what happens to them and their

future after Islamic State. In Iraq, earlier this year, one thing we were

talking about quite a lot was the heparin of towns that have been

recaptured with IEDs and the inability of communities to return

because everything was booby-trapped. His deep military and

political impact of retaking towns, while I appreciate the damage that

can do psychologically to Islamic State, is it mitigated if the local

people cannot return because we cannot rebuild those communities?

What is the impact of that? How does it impact belief in the Iraqi and

Syrian states? No one expects much from the Iraqi state. These are very

sectarian societies. Outside of Ramadi, there is a report yesterday,

1000 young men held in a warehouse with a tiny owner without enough

space to lie down or anything else. Local people are truly terrified of

the Iraqi army and security forces. The problem is that none of these

cities are really being recaptured. Most of them are in ruins after

reds. The situation makes them completely insecure even in Syrian

Kurdish held areas. I have travelled there and they are meant to be safer

than other areas, this is comparative, they are still very

dangerous places. He asked what we could do to help, this is something

we have expertise in. As Patrick says, Iraq might not make this a

priority and this is a decades long thing. The sooner you start, the

better. It is easier to remove IEDs than to be built buildings. The

problem is when people come home the buildings have been flattened in the

fighting. I think one thing, going back to an earlier question which

fits into what you asked, I think the UK could give far better help if

the system of resupply and logistics was more straightforward. As it is,

you are all aware, we give the Kurds 50 calibre machine guns a year and a

half ago. They haven't had ammunition for months and months and

months, despite repeated requests and official high-level requests

because the gym of resupply goes through Baghdad and as soon as it

goes to Baghdad you have a complex prism and no oversight to what

happens. The same as with IEDs removal.

When Parliament or the decision to enter into air strikes, we were told

at the time about the 70,000 moderates. That were available on

the ground. What is your current assessment of the situation in

regard to the Syrian opposition forces? Was the 70,008 Mraz? It is

impossible to tell. 70,002, if it was true, not a cohesive figure. It

was a rather optimistic tally of different groups and what they may

be. I challenge anybody, even the most seasoned observer, to be ill to

work out on the ground in a largely Islamist rebel movement, a largely

majority Islamist rebel movement, with Selassie groups among them,

made actually in a post-conflict Syria, be good to men aren't these

and have favourable relations with the West. -- Salafi. It may be bad

to minorities and have an aggressive relationship with the West. Who

would be against with Al-Qaeda. It is very difficult to work out.

Suffice to say, the majority of the rebel movement is Islamist. Whatever

that means. Islamist. I made myself very popular in 2012 by arguing

this, in 2011 it had been taken over. Young students, the Democrats

that came out, have been completely shut to one side. The opposition is

Islamist. That is deadly, -- different saying the majority of

non-armed opposition to Assad are Islamist. The majority of the armed

opposition are Islamist. I have not been 40 Mac years, these guys have

been the -- two years. I never met a moderate armed person, but I met a

lot of armed groups. I find it a test of those who believe in the

70,000 armed secular and non-Islamist gunmen that the people

who say this never actually say that from territory held by moderate

7000. -- 70,000. They must hold territory, be an important figure on

the map. But reports of the existence, from Beirut, Eastern

Bill, nobody actually goes their -- Istanbul. In some case academics who

have not been in Syria for five years. We should be dubious about

this. The Americans were recently saying moderate forces should move

away from Al Misra, within Aleppo, so that it could be attacked. They

cannot do that because, as my colleagues have just said, the armed

opposition is dominated by extreme Islamist. They know that if they

moved away, and extreme factions disappeared, they will be for the

Syrian army. If there is sufficient forces to unseat Assad? Then there

is an equally aggressive force waiting to replace him? Is it an

equally aggressive Islamic force waiting to replace Assad? Yes, but

Assad is not going to go. It is a strange aspect of this. I am not

saying whether it is good or bad, since 2012 Keeble has said that he

is bound to go, the opposition was pushing this idea, at that stage

there were 14 provincial capitals, he has lost two. The population of

Syria should be about 23 million at the moment because there are 6

million refugees, 10 million of those are in Government held areas,

2 million in IS held areas, 2 million Kurds, 2 million non-IS

position. That is the balance of power. I do not think there is any

chance Assad will go. I know we are running out of time, this was the

very point I wanted to make. It was in the list of questions. May I

threw this in? This was written in May of 2011, reading reports you

would be forgiven for thinking Syrian people were rising up as one

to overthrow a regime on its last legs. They are three main flaws in

this analysis. It goes on to explain why, the demographics, the Kurds,

the Christians, the analytes, when you added them all up, you realised

that this was not going to fall. If idiot journalists can work this out,

the political class should be able to work this out. We had Egypt, we

had Libya, two leaders had gone, I think the political class would do

that, grand standard left right and centre, demanded Assad should go,

that that his back against the wall and give him nowhere to go and I

think that was a mistake for us to be calling all the time, go, go, go,

existing and we have repeated for six years and we have now got

ourselves into the position where he could go sort of, bet, but not

necessarily right now, as if it is a policy. Forgive me for the extended

rant, but it was a political mistake that the political class needs the

thing much harder about when this happened again. Do you really want

to push this person into a corner? Be sure before the bridge. That

statement was restated from the Dispatch Box yesterday. With the

next emergency... I see what you mean, don't worry about the time, we

have another 20 minutes. I want to bring in Phil and Anthony, because

he was to follow up on these points. I come from a slightly different

angle. There is a middle way with Assad and that is neither to make

his removal a precondition, as had mistakenly been done previously, but

certainly that is not to accept his long-term position of power in

Syria. For a number of very good reasons. First of all, you will

never have peace, nor an end to the war in Syria, with Assad, the leader

of a minority group, in power. You only have extreme Islamist and

Islamist groups in Syria because of Assad's behaviour. To my mind,

here's the primary cancer in this. The secondary cancer may be

extremely dramatic threatening and all the rest of it but it has come

about because of the behaviour of that particular regime. It is

nonsensical to presume and say, right, the town spread new

transitional Government should be that Assad goes. Neither should he

be accepted long-term because, if you do swing your support and

acceptance of Assad long-term, never thinks will happen. First of all,

you will get a dramatic rise in western recruits, not only to

Islamic state, to other jihadi movements. Furious over its change

stands when the motivation to join IS is thrown to so many recruits as

being the hypocrisy of the West. And its double standards. Imagine what

the invitations would be if we were to accept Assad. You would also

crumble the coalition if you through your weight behind or acceptance

behind Assad. You may, Qatar, Saudi, Turkey, would not accept it. More

and more to me it would be obscene morally but it would also be

practically absurd, it would not work. Look at the demographics in

Syria. Fast majority, Sunni populace. Assad is in the white

minority. You can look at the examples in Iraq or, and in

Afghanistan, all the rest of it, Assad will not be able to take Syria

or reinstate peace in Syria as it stands. Neither as an entity

himself, because he attracts so much hostility for what he has done a

practically with the forces he has got. As to his removal and long-term

strength, I would say the one thing Russian intervention has proved is

that Assad's survival is almost entirely dependent on Russian

intervention. There is a positive and a negative to that. Can I make

one point? The biggest ally of Assad is not Russia but Iran. The whole

Shia and this band from Iran, Iraq, Syria, if we called the Allies as we

do Shia, and Levin on, see this as an existential struggle, they are

never going to let the other side win. It is often seen as the

Russians are the crucial thing, this really isn't the case, it is Iran

and Shia access, that brought band of territory north of Saudi Arabia

and south of Turkey. The Prime Minister, in his evidence to the

Liaison Committee masks himself rhetorically, is there a third way

between a dash style state and President Assad the pitcher

remaining in charge? My answer would be there has to be a third way, we

have to find a third way -- bitch. It seems to me that what you are

saying is what the theorists call a 0-sum game. You appear -- butcher.

If you align with any faction in this, you are automatically making

enemies of the other faction. Is that what you are telling us? I

think that is true but it is the wrong approach. I think the approach

should be to reduce the level of violence in the war, but the Islamic

State and Assad, the extremes, benefit from war because each site

think we have no alternative but the other. If we were with the education

Ministry in Baghdad, they may not like Assad that must but they prefer

him to the other side. They may murder you and turn you into a

refugee. We need to bring down the level of violence through

international cutting off of supply and money on weapons. Then you can

begin... You're going to have real politics will stop the people around

Assad would no longer feel so threatened by the Islamic State,

that they had to stick by asset. We get away what Northern Ireland used

to call the politics of the last atrocity. People are so terrified

they stick to the most militant members of the faction. That is the

way to go. I think otherwise the situation is, as it has been

described, there is not a third way within the conflict and thinking

there is is simply a way of prolonging the conflict. Any further

comments? I surprise myself disagreeing with Patrick, I think

there's a third way and it is the only way that you to seek otherwise

there is total surrender by war and the victory of the other. That is

simply impossible. I do not know what the third way is that I know

that is the correct path to follow and that will require huge

compromises politically with Russia and that may bring sanctions on

Ukraine, thing that will be part of the price. I think there will be big

combo misers to make and we should not be frightened of making them.

Victory by any faction outright is impossible and not desirable. There

will be a third way. A wide range of views there, I have Phil and then

Richard. I think we have covered a lot of ground there but I think if

we could have some kind of definitive answer to these

questions. Do you think Russia's action has assured that Assad will

remain in power? Shall we accept that as the new norm and accept him

as being the leader? The evil genius of what Britain has done is to

assure Assad cannot lose. -- Vladimir Putin. Once he cannot lose,

eventually the other side, I believe, it will filter down and

that means we cannot win. That leans towards the third way. I think

absolutely yes -- guaranteed that they cannot lose. Yes. But I do not

think... I think there is a positive to Assad's medium-term survival

thanks to Russia. I think he is entirely dependent on Russia and I

think, to take issue with what Patrick said earlier, there had been

no shortage of Hezbollah or Iranian special forces recruits from across

the world to support the regime, but they were on the back foot last

autumn, they were losing ground. It was looking like there could be a

tilt away from the resume and the machine heartland areas. It was not

until Russian air strikes came in at the tables turned. The only positive

I see out of that is that, providing you keep dialogue with Russia,

providing America does, Assad, who knows his survival is dependent on

Russia, if you can sway Russia, it is long-term interest with the state

in Syria that they are not best vested in Assad, there is a

potential positive outcome. Could one get rid of Assad but keep the

resume? Would that make any difference? Is there an alternative

to the regime? All this talk about there to be a third way, but nobody

knows what it is, means you very rapidly get into wishful thinking.

One has to take things as they are. I think they need to, as I said,

reduce the level of violence and we are beginning to have that because

of the US and Russia are beginning to have ceasefires with tremendous

spurts of violence in between. If it goes that way, then I think that you

can begin to get back into a situation where the armed opposition

is dominated by extreme Salafi jihadis. Islamic state and so forth.

A lesser degree of violence then we begin to have real politics

happening again. I do not think Assad... People think that one side

or the other is going to collapse, with my experience in Iraq and

Syria, they have their constituency, they are nearly pressed back, but

they will always find a way of stoning business.

The sheer and the rest of the region will not let us all. They think it

will be them next. I think the way forward is it a degree of

cooperation with Russia, try to reduce the level of violence, begin

to try to get the refugees back at some stage. A big chunk of the

population are in at Dublin on for Jordan were heading for Europe. I

think that is the way to go to see what real measures can be done to

mitigate violence and to remedy the consequences of the violence. We

need to move on. Just a comment on the 70,000. I have never been of the

opinion that there are people in uniforms, formed as part of that

figure. 70,000 is not .32% of the pre-Civil War population. Surely it

is conceivable that there are 70,000 people out there who, given the

right circumstances, they just have an AK-47 under the bed but they

could be convinced to work with us. Is that too ridiculous concept? How

can you prove the number? Let's make it 60,000. I just do not see how it

is possible to extrapolate, not being on the ground, not doing

opinion polls were phoning people opt in or how many people are rebels

were moderate rebels. You are better off asking the Prime Minister. There

is a misconception that 70,000 guys with guns are not an army. They

could be easily destroyed by any properly organised well trained

armed force. Almost every young man in Iraq has begun. That is not an

army. They don't really count. I think the same is true in Syria. In

Syria, you find the regime in your town, your village. You might find

enough angry, probably Islamist young men who have been thrown out

of their area by Islamic State who, given the right motivation, might

want to go back and fight Islamic State in that area. Whether or not

they will be friendly to the west, to Israel, whether they would be

long-term allies in the region were shared the same foreign policy as

ours is rather another issue. Most rebel groups are more intent on

fighting sad that they are fighting Islamic State. Can I ask about that

though? It is very much in the news at the moment. In December 2012, you

wrote an article, Anthony, in the times which, it has been argued

changed government policy. It is depressingly similar then to what is

going on now. He talked about shells exploding in streets, chopping up a

group of four men in a weight so grotesque I cannot describe it here.

Cries of we are hungry and give us bread stocked my journey. If that

was happening then, what is happening now? Is this a policy of

webinars in the migrant crisis? Is this the steel regime going to sink

any lower? Is there anything worse it can do in terms of what it can

inflict on the population of this city? It is very difficult to

describe even having covered 15 or 20 conflicts around the world

something as extreme as is happening in Aleppo. It was a good deal worse

when I was last there. Admittedly I haven't been back for a year and a

half. The last time I went I went to a school that had been bombed on

sports day. One bomb had heard a girl against the wall and blast that

are outlined in black on the wall. She was nine or ten years old. So

was blasted into the corridor. That sort of stuff happens the whole

time. It is a terrible vision. It is very difficult to explain to people

here because it is so extreme. I don't know. But the property causes

a page on the other side. We have fighter planes and helicopters that

could drop humanitarian aid in an area the size of this room. We could

land on a bit of rough ground so the White helmets were some organisation

could get there. Is it conceivable we could negotiate with the Russians

and the regime to create protections around a hospital for... He is

calling for that and he is right. Would that be safe. Could there be

in this lush an assurance from the regime to make sure they would be

safe? I couldn't guarantee they would be shot down by the people

they were trying to help. These people are very angry. Keep in mind

we are intervening in the Civil War are two sides each other and have

real constituencies. The people killed in Aleppo over the past

couple of weeks, it was 132 killed by government barrel bombs and

shelling and 84 killed by rebel shelling in government-held areas.

All this is horrible, but it doesn't mean that it isn't a civil war which

we should be very careful about not getting sucked into because of

humanitarian, very genuine and understandable, humanitarian

concerns. Most people who because of bombing or shelling, they die in

battles. Is that true? Most people die through kinetic... Yes. They die

on both sides in the fighting. The Syrian army have lost 80 5000. We

had about 49 children killed by Russian and regime are strikes. The

accurate figures stopped being counted about a year ago. I think

that in Aleppo, the idea that one could suddenly intervene and start

dropping humanitarian supplies, all these things bring enormous

difficulties. We should be very careful before plugging into this

war. I think the only way is to try to reduce the level of violence

generally. Nobody is going to win this war, it will go on and on. I am

conscious of the time. I just wanted to say, there are those, some on

this committee who believe that the best chance of creating some form of

secular, more tolerant society in Syria means that we have two be much

more understanding of the regime's position. If we really do go down

that route, are we not ignoring the fact that many minorities, including

Christians, have been massacred as freely by his regime as his Islamic

enemies such Mark minorities generally are terrified of the other

side. The Islamic Army which controls eastern regions produced a

video saying what they thought of a small minority group. They said they

are not Islamists and we think it is OK to kill them and take them as

slaves. Imagine what you feel if you come from a community like that. You

might not like Assad but it is better than the other side. We

should have an understanding of their position without supporting

it. There are whispers you can make to them, reminding them that Russia

and Iran, neither of them are signatories to the Hague Convention.

You can whisper that no one is coming after you. You absolutely

need to understand that Christians, other whites, other minorities do

fear Islamist 's ticking over. Baby steps all the way. I think it is

worth trying to get air drops in. That is not taking sides. It is

taking the side of civilians. There is a way forward you have to try.

Part of that is understanding that not all of Syria was against Assad

and a significant number of people in the country do not like him, but

nor do they like the alternative and within that, there is some way that

people like yourselves can push policies towards an endgame which is

somewhat off yet. Everyone should be very clear about what it involves,

understanding Assad and use words like guarantees for minorities.

Remember the seas are photographs that came out of the man who

documented the torture victims on behalf of the regime. This was

11,000 tortured to death corpses that he was tasked with

photographing in a short period. Amnesty International said that up

to 65,000 people or more have been disappeared by the regime. Human

rights watch studied those photographs and found them to be

genuine, talked about crimes against humanity. The United Nations

commission of enquiry which looked at that report said the government

of Syria is responsible for acts mad to extermination and crimes against

humanity. I understand people who want to understand Assad, but I am

convinced that the regime is the primary cancer. It might have exist

in the middle term but do not delude yourselves that by closing up to

Assad we might swing round our long-term interests you. It won't

work. I am addressing them not you. I want to give analysts the last

word. I am conscious of Coloccini have not had a chance to ask

colleagues. One or two are offering to forego that and that is

appreciated. Bob and Ruth, would you very quickly like to put a final

point, one after the other and we will have a final word from each.

Anthony, Tim and Patrick have covered my question pretty well.

Fundamentally, there are people in Syria who are frightened sick that

Islamic State were murdered them and therefore they are setting with

Assad. I think that is the answer I would get from all three and that

would be my question is answered. I am not going to ask my question but

I will ask something else. It became clear that we had shared language or

understanding of history or any possible way forward for dialogue

and yesterday, when the minister was talking about Aleppo and refugees he

still could not give us any answers. Everyone kept saying we need to

bring Russia to the table but no real mechanism of initiating that

debate and discussion. Relations are at a low that, in my lifetime, are

at their lowest. What way do you think we should engage with the

Russians? You have all talked about it but I have no clear path for how

we have those conversations? And easy question for you!

Volunteers? There is a way. They have things they want. It is a

compromise. I agree with the passionate icebergs to the Mac

outbursts about Assad and all the crimes but I thought think, just

stop it somehow. If that requires the compromises to get out of the

country, to Moscow with quiet assurances, which I am allowed to

say and you are not, fine. As for the Rogers, they have all sorts of

things they want. It is a case of how much -- Russians. It is a case

of how much you can give them. They are a player and have made

themselves so. You have got to talk to them because if you do not, it

does not get settled. Talk to them, find out what they want, reduce the

violence, think about federal Syria, find alternative leaders and model

your way for -- foreword to the next couple of years. You must keep

talking to Russia. As I was saying earlier, the Russian relationship

with Assad, there is a positive side to that. Russia is the persuader.

What I also wanted to say is that, regardless of outside decisions and

foreign policy, war is not something that is that long-term and intense

that can be turned off the attack by outside powers, war is about what

goes on in the street, in a village, in a valley, and the emotions in

this conflict are far hotter than can be gals to buy some foreign

policy decision. -- diarist. There are decisions that can be taken.

They may not like what the outside powers tell them to do with money

and weapons and the support. The US and ourselves and the Russians have

that influence. The Turks, the Saudis, the Iranians also have

influence there. There is always a danger, when this comes up, trying

to explain what comes up in Syria, that explanation can look like

justification, of course I am not justifying, but I cannot think of a

way to solve this. We need to take the situation as it is and reduce

the violence and improve it. If the other way is not there, to look for

another way is an abdication of responsibility to my mind. Are the

Russians going to let this regime be displaced? Are the Iranians? Nil

will stop this is not going to happen. Can we mitigate what I

regime does by talking to their Russians? Yes, I think we can and

the Americans with some success, had been doing this, because we have had

ceasefires for the first time in five years in different areas. They

are like the ceasefires in the Lebanese civil war, everybody mocks

them and you can see where they are not working but in many areas less

people had been killed than were being killed before. This is the way

to go. You cannot say to the Russians, Assad is going to go and,

by the way, we want you to pressure him to not drop bombs on civilian

places, to have ceasefires and so forth. I think there's a lack of

realism there, in which one eventually becomes complicit in this

ongoing tragedy. Thank you all very much indeed, we'd love to go on

longer but we cannot. If there is the possibility of our staff

submitting the few extra questions to you for replying in writing,

would that be acceptable? We are very grateful and greed. We have

covered a huge range of views and topics. -- grateful indeed. Session

is included, order, order. -- concluded.

The Palace of Westminster, with its many stone figures, is the ultimate

Gothic revival