Britain kills two UK citizens fighting for ISIS in Syria. AFP.

A RAF Ddrone. AFP.

An RAF drone has killed two UK citizens in a drone strike in Syria leading to criticism of the UK government. AFP. UK citizens Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were killed in an a drone strike last month. Khan was suspected of planning an attack on the VJ celebration held this month which was attended by the Queen and Prime Minster David Cameron. An additional jihadist died along with Khan and Amin as their vehicle was hit by a missile. Civil rights groups have condemned the strike, arguing that it violated the men's due process rights. David Cameron has argued that the two men were a direct threat to the UK and that there was no other way to stop them. This is the first time that the UK has used a drone strike in a country they were not at war with. They have conducted strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this is the first time they have done so in Syria. Khan had bragged on twitter how he was planning attacks in the UK and that he had executed prisoners. The UK has considered expanding their bombing campaign in Iraq to Syria. 

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings on this one. I'll go through the benefits first. It's clear that Khan was not a good person and killing him was a good thing. How real the danger is, is unclear but I doubt the UK could have dealt with him in Syria any other way. The UK has commandos that could have captured Khan and Amin, but the danger would have been incredible and there would be no guarantee of success. And it is clear that both of them were guilty of treason. They needed to face justice somehow.

Still, the human rights people may have a point. Though there was no way to capture these men in Syria, what was preventing them from capturing them the second they entered Europe? If they were detected they could have been arrested easily right? My guess is that isn't true. As the migrant crisis has shown Europe's borders are about as far away from secure as they could be. In short I doubt that they could detect it if Khan had tried to get back to the UK.

A better argument is that the threat wasn't that severe. I don't know how true that is since I obviously don't have access to the intel the UK government has. Still, it seems unlikely that one guy could pull off a major attack by himself in less then a month. Especially since it would probably have taken quite a bit of time to have him get back to the UK anyways. And that's not considering the logistical nightmare it would be for him to find weapons and/or explosives in the UK unless he had a network supporting him. And if there was a network supporting him, why didn't the attack happen? They could have found someone else to carry out the attack. My guess is that the threat was mostly big talk from a small fry terrorist that wasn't anywhere near the threat the government was making him out to be. Still it's very possible that we aren't getting the whole story and Khan is more of a threat then I suspect. It's just not possible for me to know.

There is also the argument that the UK shouldn't be killing civilians without a trial. I'm on record on saying that the U.S. should do whatever it can to avoid having to kill American citizens if it can all avoid it. There is a major difference between killing a traitor engaged in combat and killing one accused of plotting an attack but not actually doing anything immediate. I think the UK crossed the line here. Citizens deserve trials if it is all possible, not a targeted killing.

But then again this is the UK were are talking about. They don't really respect human rights. The right to bear arms and freedom of speech don't exist there. Complaining about them respecting the right of traitors when they don't even respect the rights of their citizens to protect themselves or speak their mind freely seems a little obscene. 

As for the UK joining the war in Syria, I say welcome to the party. I've said many times that Syria is the war that everyone showed up to so why not add yet another faction?  With Russia apparently joining the fracas there is no reason for the Brits to stay out of the war. Of course I don't see the war ending anytime soon even if the UK starts fighting ISIS. A few bombing strikes won't do much, especially with every other non-local faction joining the air war. There is a concern that the air space is too crowded. With the gulf states, Turkey, the United States a few NATO countries and the Syrians themselves, with perhaps the Russians joining the party as well, the possibilities of an friendly fire accident are going up.