The US drone strike that likely killed Mohammed Emwazi, the sadistic IS beheader known as Jihadi John, is “overwhelmingly supported” by the British public, says Michael Savage in The Times – 76% supported last Thursday’s strike and only 11% believed the killing was wrong. That puts the majority “at odds” with Jeremy Corbyn, who said “it would have been far better for all of us if he had been held to account in a court of law”.
Corbyn’s wish was an “unfulfillable fantasy”, says Max Hastings in The Mail on Sunday, but he isn’t the only one who feels “uneasy about conceding to the government an absolute right to determine whom the armed forces should be allowed to kill”. Drones have become the “weapons of choice” for both the Americans and British to conduct killings of terrorists or jihadis identified by intelligence agencies, yet “all manner of unintended and unwelcome consequences will follow when others start playing the same game”. Both countries must “establish and publicly declare rules and restraints by which they operate”.
The other effect of the strike is to generate “that most elusive quality for a military campaign – momentum”, says Geoff Dyer in the Financial Times. The “attempt by US-backed forces to retake Sinjar in Iraq, growing pressure on Raqqa in Syria, increased attacks on IS oil infrastructure and the Thursday drone strike will not by themselves substantially weaken” IS. But they did give the US an “important boost” as it went into a weekend of “diplomatic wrangling” over Syria at the G20 summit in Turkey.
While there is “still no sign of agreement” as to the “future of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad”, says Ian Black in The Guardian, the US, Russia, Britain, France, Iran and Saudi Arabia signed a statement “supporting a 1 January deadline for the start of talks between the Syrian government and opposition”, with hope of a ceasefire by 14 May.