Striking Syria: Politically Challenging but Fundamentally Right
Mr Cameron's desire to reignite Blair style liberal interventionism with the proposition of the albeit scaled down Commons vote is a brave move. Some would also say reckless in the face of public skepticism and military risks.
With the majority of Britons and just under half of Americans opposed to Syria intervention, it is obvious that the public is tired of expensive wars in terms of lives and money, backed up by the constant press reports of deaths of UK personal and justified oil conspiracies in the wake of the Iraq war. The public don't hold the view that this is about chemical weapons, saving lives and thus a continuation of compassionate conservatism. The UK is in relative decline; we are now the world's 7th largest economy in £1.3 trillion of debt, and thus some believe we should sort ourselves out before helping others. There is a belief that Britain should be more like the economically successful nations of Germany and Japan, with more of a domestic policy focus as opposed to foreign wars. And with 2,500,000,000 barrels of oil under Syria there public cynicism is inevitable. Cameron wants to 'unite the country' under his view that intervention should take place in line with a UN resolution; but the public remains not just divided, but decisively against Cameron.
However, it is my view that we cannot stand by while Assad murders his own citizens. We can't watch as the Syria death toll exceeds 100,000 and refugees number over 2 million (causing further sectarian, political and economic tension in neighboring nations such as Lebanon). If in the unlikely event the British government started attacking British citizens, we would expect the international community to act. Syria is different from Iraq, with chemical weapons use 'beyond reasonable doubt' in both the UK & US intelligence community, with video based evidence and UN evidence expcted to be released on Saturday (whereas the WMD evidence was based on Curveball, the codename for the Iraqi immigrant who claimed he was involved with Saddam's WMD program in order to gain asylum into Germany). And of course a peaceful Syria would ensure the mutually profitable extraction of oil in the country, ensuring greater standards of living in both the West and middle East. The alternative is an unstable failed nation, creating a textbook environment for the birth and nurture of extreme ideology. The Syrian opposition is also some disorganised mish-mash of Al Qaeda extremists; the more moderate majority FSA has only lost personnel to more extreme opposition groups due to a lack of FSA resources (weapons and food). Striking Syria would also help the West's shaky reputation in the Middle East. But why not just let the US do it? That is an option (better than no intervention all together) and would of course be less costly and mark an honourable climbdown from for UK from its world power delusion. However, multilateral action will ensure attacking Assad's assets is safer and faster. It would also be selfish for the UK to just let other powers do the work in an operation that is in the interests of every major Western nation.
I would argue diplomatic options should have been explored further and more imaginatively, such as proposing the possibility of a two-state solution as a last resort. However, after two and a half years of failed diplomacy it is too later to dither on. Now, military strikes followed by a no fly zone would be the best option, balancing hardly damaging the Assad war machine and unpopular all out Iraq style involvement.
Possible Military strategy:
For maximum damage strikes should be carried out by surprise (this would be ensured by creating a false backing down by withdrawing assets from the region and lowering the aggressive rhetoric over the weekend). Otherwise strikes will be ineffective as command and control centers are being evacuated anyway as prospects of intervention increase (and ineffective strikes would drag the west further into the war). A no fly zone could be effectively imposed by ruining Assad's airfields to further support the rebels, while anti aircraft batteries should and of course will be taken out if strikes begin. To reduce public skepticism the west could support the rebels using the air using drones instead of risking NATO lives in fighter jets (but this must be used cautiously to avoid rebel causalities and thus controversy, but luckily there's less risk of civilian collateral damage due to the slightly reduced population of Syria, especially in urban areas). Drone use could have been made less controversial by extensively training FSA fighters to use these US/UK drones. Thereby, we would have been supplying arms to Syria in a very effective matter, and not directly intervening. However, the past is past, and strikes and a no fly zone need to begin for moral and strategic reasons.
With the majority of Britons and just under half of Americans opposed to Syria intervention, it is obvious that the public is tired of expensive wars in terms of lives and money, backed up by the constant press reports of deaths of UK personal and justified oil conspiracies in the wake of the Iraq war. The public don't hold the view that this is about chemical weapons, saving lives and thus a continuation of compassionate conservatism. The UK is in relative decline; we are now the world's 7th largest economy in £1.3 trillion of debt, and thus some believe we should sort ourselves out before helping others. There is a belief that Britain should be more like the economically successful nations of Germany and Japan, with more of a domestic policy focus as opposed to foreign wars. And with 2,500,000,000 barrels of oil under Syria there public cynicism is inevitable. Cameron wants to 'unite the country' under his view that intervention should take place in line with a UN resolution; but the public remains not just divided, but decisively against Cameron.
However, it is my view that we cannot stand by while Assad murders his own citizens. We can't watch as the Syria death toll exceeds 100,000 and refugees number over 2 million (causing further sectarian, political and economic tension in neighboring nations such as Lebanon). If in the unlikely event the British government started attacking British citizens, we would expect the international community to act. Syria is different from Iraq, with chemical weapons use 'beyond reasonable doubt' in both the UK & US intelligence community, with video based evidence and UN evidence expcted to be released on Saturday (whereas the WMD evidence was based on Curveball, the codename for the Iraqi immigrant who claimed he was involved with Saddam's WMD program in order to gain asylum into Germany). And of course a peaceful Syria would ensure the mutually profitable extraction of oil in the country, ensuring greater standards of living in both the West and middle East. The alternative is an unstable failed nation, creating a textbook environment for the birth and nurture of extreme ideology. The Syrian opposition is also some disorganised mish-mash of Al Qaeda extremists; the more moderate majority FSA has only lost personnel to more extreme opposition groups due to a lack of FSA resources (weapons and food). Striking Syria would also help the West's shaky reputation in the Middle East. But why not just let the US do it? That is an option (better than no intervention all together) and would of course be less costly and mark an honourable climbdown from for UK from its world power delusion. However, multilateral action will ensure attacking Assad's assets is safer and faster. It would also be selfish for the UK to just let other powers do the work in an operation that is in the interests of every major Western nation.
I would argue diplomatic options should have been explored further and more imaginatively, such as proposing the possibility of a two-state solution as a last resort. However, after two and a half years of failed diplomacy it is too later to dither on. Now, military strikes followed by a no fly zone would be the best option, balancing hardly damaging the Assad war machine and unpopular all out Iraq style involvement.
Possible Military strategy:
For maximum damage strikes should be carried out by surprise (this would be ensured by creating a false backing down by withdrawing assets from the region and lowering the aggressive rhetoric over the weekend). Otherwise strikes will be ineffective as command and control centers are being evacuated anyway as prospects of intervention increase (and ineffective strikes would drag the west further into the war). A no fly zone could be effectively imposed by ruining Assad's airfields to further support the rebels, while anti aircraft batteries should and of course will be taken out if strikes begin. To reduce public skepticism the west could support the rebels using the air using drones instead of risking NATO lives in fighter jets (but this must be used cautiously to avoid rebel causalities and thus controversy, but luckily there's less risk of civilian collateral damage due to the slightly reduced population of Syria, especially in urban areas). Drone use could have been made less controversial by extensively training FSA fighters to use these US/UK drones. Thereby, we would have been supplying arms to Syria in a very effective matter, and not directly intervening. However, the past is past, and strikes and a no fly zone need to begin for moral and strategic reasons.
Comments
Post a Comment