Commentary, on Syria:
The question on many lips now is what will happen next in Syria. Will the regime take Thursday’s UK commons defeat on military action as a carte blanche to inflict more damage on civilians? There are however many more long standing unanswered questions.
Who carried out the attacks? Was it the rebels? If so will they launch more attacks in order to hammer home the point that people are dying in Syria?
To quote Cameron we are not stupid, “we get that”.
According to the Guardian Cameron had a spiteful phone call with Miliband the day before the vote accusing him of siding with Russia and Syria. A low blow and not worthy of a statesman we feel. Thought it was supposed to be about a humanitarian effort and protecting people from the use of chemical weapons. It still baffles me why a chemical attack is frowned on but an atom bomb is not. The chemical weapons references date back to WW1 but at that time we did not have "the bomb".
US President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State are spitting feathers following Cameron's defeat. Kerry’s anger was visible as he addressed the nation Friday and pointedly referred to America’s great and long standing allies, the French. He maybe needs reminding that unlike the UK they failed to wade into Iraq at the American signal. They are not war weary or depleted.
Whilst some have chosen to take Kerry’s words as a slur against the UK the two countries do have a long history. French and US forces defeated the UK in the old colonial days. How much they have worked together since is debateable.
Those who support the no vote in the Commons have many reasons why. Firstly many do not believe a word that our leaders tell us. As they sowed they now reap. Too many lies, too much subterfuge and too many world events manipulated for their own ends. Until we know who is killing who and why we should stay calm and hold back on action.
You can argue we have done that for two years but heavy-handed action before a UN announcement is foolish. Do we want to turn Syria into another crippled country like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan or Egypt? They are just a few countries which have not fared well following western intervention.
Saturday anti-war protests are scheduled for the USA and UK. London is expecting a huge march against military intervention in Syria.
Ed Miliband has written a thoughtful piece which is published in the Guardian. The New Stateman carried a snippet which says:
Hard-headed but full-hearted engagement with the UN is vital both because it helps establish the moral authority of any recommended course of action, and because it ensures that such action has the very best chance of success. The UN security council is the forum in which Britain should seek to make its case to the world, test that case, and where effective alliances should be built. This does not rule out acting without the authorisation of the security council but in accordance with international law, as was the case with Kosovo. But seeking to work through the UN must be the essential precondition of any action.
You can read the full article entitled "I believe Britain can still make a difference in Syria here".
Whilst you may agee others will not want action at any price.
Those who quote Chamberlain's false "peace in our time" claims and WW11 which followed use flawed arguments. Hitler and the Nazis were marching into countries. Those invasions led to the war. As yet Syria is experiencing a civil war. For now, callous as it sounds, that is their business.
Recent western conflict has involved our armies marching into other countries, which could result in historical condemnation.
Until we know the west is not embroiled with the rebels, and that al Qaeda is not waiting in the wings, who wants conflict? The people of Syria deserve peace not more conflict followed by chaos.
As military builds in the middle east anti-war protests gather momentum in the west. Euro News carries details plus the following:
Who supports and opposes military intervention in Syria?