Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky Labour sources say expect to whip Syria vote. If Miliband backs military intervention, many Labour MPs will feel uneasy post-Iraq
I am often critical of Farage as far as his internal UKIP politics is concerned but in this case I think both morally and politically he is absolutely right. Politically UKIP can only benefit from being the only major party to oppose action (if indeed that is where the parties end up).
More importantly on a purely moral/practical level, our intervention will not make Syria a better or safer place, nor is there much chance it will lead to a more stable, democratic, tolerant or West friendly rule in the country.
I don't subscribe to any great conspiracy theories about why Cameron and Obama want to get us involved. I just think they believe their own propaganda about the righteousness of the cause and they are, unfortunately, wrong.
I agree with all of that.
It also reassures me that I did the right thing by joining UKIP.
How much have you reduced the Luton South Conservative activists by ?
It's a sad fact that there are hardly any activists, despite there being thousands of Conservative voters.
1. He's not a total idiot; and 2. His people read opinion polls and sniff the wind for him.
There are alot of 'let's be extremely cautious' articles across the press today. So...if he wades in for a big attack and gets outvoted on it in parliament my assumption 1 will prove to be wrong.
The polling at the top of this thread shows that the public have it about right. There are no good guys in the Middle East.
I suspect Dave will water things down and seek an action that is much more limited than some expect.
Plato joins the Conservatives. Sean Fear joins Ukip. Mike Smithson hopes you can't see the join.
Haven't you been banned yet? :^ )
I'm banned from PB functions - Mike considers the presence of this Scottish aristo would lower the tone .... he's certainly correct but it'd be one hell of a party !!
Describing Respect as a political party is going some. Galloway will undoubtedly give both barrels which may rub off briefly on the effectiveness of the Respect label but they don't have the organisation or unity of purpose to capitalise on it, especially if UKIP are out there first.
According to Y0kel, who seems more informed and is certainly more interesting on these matters than the MSM the chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian 4th division under the control of Assad's brother.
If the signal intelligence is backed up by some confirmation on the ground, eg identification of the sort of munition used, I wonder if a way forward would be to demand that Syria hand the brother over for trial before the International Criminal Court.
This would set a clear and useful precedent that chemical weapons are unacceptable, it would not cause collateral deaths, it would not strengthen the bunch of nutters that are the opposition and given that there would be a trial it just might be acceptable to the Russians.
If such a proposal was made it just might form the basis of a UN security council agreement. I really think it is worth a try. The current path is so fraught with problems as to be nothing but a last resort. This could arise if Syria refused to hand the brother over but we would then have a much better basis and a clear objective, neither of which we have at the moment.
It all has the feel of trouble, with each side in Syria having powerful allies. Not quite Sarajevo 1914, but potentially an expansion into a regional war, with Saudis and Turkey vs Iran and Russia.
I really do not like either side, this is one to sit out.
They may pick up on the left wing/muslim anti war vote in some constituencies, particularly if Labour sides with Obama and it all goes badly wrong. A sort of polar opposite to UKIP, but bedfellows nonetheless. Like UKIP it may tip the balance in marginal seats.
Describing Respect as a political party is going some. Galloway will undoubtedly give both barrels which may rub off briefly on the effectiveness of the Respect label but they don't have the organisation or unity of purpose to capitalise on it, especially if UKIP are out there first.
Describing Respect as a political party is going some. Galloway will undoubtedly give both barrels which may rub off briefly on the effectiveness of the Respect label but they don't have the organisation or unity of purpose to capitalise on it, especially if UKIP are out there first.
There are only two possible reasons for intervening in a foreign war.
1 It is in British interests to do so.
2 It is morally the right thing to do. In other words, we are acting as the self-selected world's policeman. That is a perfectly valid approach, and was the British position until Suez.
1 above does not apply.
There is no appetite in the country for the UK to re-adopt role 2. Sometimes, the govt is in front of popular opinion---it has a view which is more informed and more valid than the great British public.
However, the govt has to be absolutely certain it is right when it threatens actions which are so out-of-step with public opinion. It cannot have that certainty.
It all has the feel of trouble, with each side in Syria having powerful allies. Not quite Sarajevo 1914, but potentially an expansion into a regional war, with Saudis and Turkey vs Iran and Russia.
I really do not like either side, this is one to sit out.
This may well reflect the UKIP tendency of that paper these days but nearly 90% opposed does send yet another message. Whatever reason Cameron has for pushing this domestic politics is not it.
1. He's not a total idiot; and 2. His people read opinion polls and sniff the wind for him.
There are alot of 'let's be extremely cautious' articles across the press today. So...if he wades in for a big attack and gets outvoted on it in parliament my assumption 1 will prove to be wrong.
The polling at the top of this thread shows that the public have it about right. There are no good guys in the Middle East.
I suspect Dave will water things down and seek an action that is much more limited than some expect.
Parliament voting against an attack (especially if most of the dissenters are LD and Labour) might be a win-win for Cameron.
Short term, he can sell it as putting the option in front of parliament. Long-term, as the slaughters and chemical attacks continue, he can be seen as a wise sage ("this would not have happened if we'd done what we wanted").
Indeed, it could be argued that the situation in Syria would be much better if Hollande and Cameron had had their way back in 2011 and 2012, before the foreign insurgents got heavily involved. An interesting alternative history.
Fine post. The idea of bombing with no other war aim other than delivering a collective punishment is so crude and brutal it's from another century. Your idea to corner the guilty parties and demand they face justice is a good one. If the idea is to impose some recognizable international law I can't think of anything more effective than making individuals responsible
If Dave pushes for an attack but gets outvoted it would be politically disastrous for him. (See DT blogs on this). He'd look out of touch, aggressive and impotent all in one. He'll want to be on the winning side of a vote. So I expect him to tailor what is voted for accordingly. If he doesn't then he is a knob who deserves to get outvoted and lose authority.
To reply to hunchman on the last thread - I'm not close enough to the current PLP to be confident, but I don 't detect any great groundswell of opinion in Labour: my own opposition to intervention has generated precisely one response (he expressed doubts). So I'd guess that the majority will go along with missile strikes if they're specifically presented as a response to the chemical attacks. Overall I'd guess that there will be a large majority for it in Parliament, maybe 3-1, and it won't have significant domestic political impact.
If it's thought to go well, there should be a bit of upside for the Government; if it's thought to lead to a bad outcome, a bit of downside, but generally even most political people think it's tricky and aren't fully engaged on either side of the argument - as noted, even Caroline Lucas isn't too sure. As with Libya, the fact that it's about long-range attacks with little obvious scope for Syrian retaliation means that people don't feel as strongly.
No surprise.... labour don't have a groundswell of opinion on anything, such is the Zen socialism of Ed...
It all has the feel of trouble, with each side in Syria having powerful allies. Not quite Sarajevo 1914, but potentially an expansion into a regional war, with Saudis and Turkey vs Iran and Russia.
I really do not like either side, this is one to sit out.
Absolutely... Syria is backed up by countries across Asia...
1. He's not a total idiot; and 2. His people read opinion polls and sniff the wind for him.
There are alot of 'let's be extremely cautious' articles across the press today. So...if he wades in for a big attack and gets outvoted on it in parliament my assumption 1 will prove to be wrong.
The polling at the top of this thread shows that the public have it about right. There are no good guys in the Middle East.
I suspect Dave will water things down and seek an action that is much more limited than some expect.
Parliament voting against an attack (especially if most of the dissenters are LD and Labour) might be a win-win for Cameron.
Short term, he can sell it as putting the option in front of parliament. Long-term, as the slaughters and chemical attacks continue, he can be seen as a wise sage ("this would not have happened if we'd done what we wanted").
Indeed, it could be argued that the situation in Syria would be much better if Hollande and Cameron had had their way back in 2011 and 2012, before the foreign insurgent got heavily involved. An interesting alternative history.
1.The US are going to bomb Assad whatever the British Parliament says. 2.What was "Cameron's way" back in 2011?
So, let the US get on with it...they don't need us. We shouldn't pay the price for Obama's 'red-lines'
But hasn't Plato said she's joined the Conservatives ?
I have. I put my £25 where my mouth is. And I don't want Labour anywhere near power.
As I remember you voted Labour for 10 years.
I did - the Tories were unelectable. But I regret it now. Wish I stayed at home instead. I never joined Labour - I lent them my vote. I have no problem voting for more than one party during my lifetime. When things change - so does my opinion.
1. There is a relative order of ghastliness even among atrocities. Mass murder with genocidal intent is worse than mass murder and gassing is worse than bombing. You may dissent from either view but they are presumably what the human race as a whole believes, setting as how we have international conventions dealing with both issues.
2. It is fun to pretend that politicians you disagree with are lying self interested shitbags. It is quite possible that they aren't and that all of Miliband, Clegg and Cameron (because all three potentially have an influence on the outcome) are decent men who feel faced with a horrible dilemma: on the one hand blah blah blah, on the other hand gassed children.
3. It is always easier to find cogent arguments against any given course of action than for it.
I hope London/washington strategists are earning their crusts today. Assad must have known that chemical weapons would pull the West into this. The question is why he wants the West involved and how we avoid doing his bidding.
In chess the endgame (and its success or failure) depends on how well you have planned your opening (including a thorough knowledge of you opponent's previous games) and their reaction to that opening and your middle game.
Any deficiency in your opening will be starkly and often fatally obvious by the time you get to the endgame - viz Iraq2.
At present I just cannot vizualise the end game if military intervention is started in Syria and I believe that nobody can say honestly that they can - except potentially starting off a form of armageddon/ Holy War that could spread throughout much of Asia. Today there are more fundamental/radical Islamic groups who wish rule using Islamic law (and not secular law) than there was fifty years ago and few of them agree with each other. TE Laurence had a huge problem in bringing the Arab tribes together and those alliances dissolved in their victory at Damascus.
1. It is highly likely that Syria will 'protect' key people/installations with civilians and so claim that the West/UN murdered civilians and children.
2. We know that so-called clinical strikes can and do go wrong and the USA has a track record here - more beneficial propaganda for Syria.
3. If after a clinical strike, Syria deploys chemical weapons again (says the West/UN has forced us to defend ourselves from our enemies) - what is the nest step? More strikes - invasion?
4. If Assad and his ilk are wiped out - what then? Will Iran stand idly by? Will Saudi Arabia insulate itself or look to the West for protection?
These large number of unknowns make the risks of military action far too high, however combined civil action with getting Russia onside could work in the end but it would mean controlling and shutting off Syria' borders. There would be a greater exodus of refugees and the West/UN would have to be prepared to look after those people in the interim.
1. He's not a total idiot; and 2. His people read opinion polls and sniff the wind for him.
There are alot of 'let's be extremely cautious' articles across the press today. So...if he wades in for a big attack and gets outvoted on it in parliament my assumption 1 will prove to be wrong.
The polling at the top of this thread shows that the public have it about right. There are no good guys in the Middle East.
I suspect Dave will water things down and seek an action that is much more limited than some expect.
Parliament voting against an attack (especially if most of the dissenters are LD and Labour) might be a win-win for Cameron.
Short term, he can sell it as putting the option in front of parliament. Long-term, as the slaughters and chemical attacks continue, he can be seen as a wise sage ("this would not have happened if we'd done what we wanted").
Indeed, it could be argued that the situation in Syria would be much better if Hollande and Cameron had had their way back in 2011 and 2012, before the foreign insurgent got heavily involved. An interesting alternative history.
1.The US are going to bomb Assad whatever the British Parliament says. 2.What was "Cameron's way" back in 2011?
1) That is not certain. Probable, yes. Certain, no. A large vote against action in the UK parliament might make any US lone action more politically difficult for Obama. It is also a step that Obama does not seem to want to make.
2) Cameron and Hollande have consistently wanted a firmer line on Syria, and wanted to up the pressure on the regime. He has been consistently criticised on here for that posture.
I hope London/washington strategists are earning their crusts today. Assad must have known that chemical weapons would pull the West into this. The question is why he wants the West involved and how we avoid doing his bidding.
Good question. Which raises the question why Assad would have done it?
Assad had nothing to gain from the attack... his enemies, or other parties do. Which should give at least cause for thought. You have Syria (Assad), Al-Qaeda/various islamists, Iran, with Russia and China as other loose allies...
That's a toxic mix. Sometimes the way to win a game, is not to play.
Slackbladder: FWIW my comment on Syria was to my broader email list, most of whom are not consistently Labour people, and whereas a comment on, say, benefits will gets dozens of replies (pro and con) and the Iraq war generated hundreds on both sides when I was consulting about it, it was noticeable that I just had the one reply to this.
So it's not just that there isn't a Labour groundswell, there isn't one in the general public either, in my opinion. Ask people what they think and they'll say hmm, we probably shouldn't get involved, but it's not catching fire as a major popular issue at all. Yet, anyway.
1. He's not a total idiot; and 2. His people read opinion polls and sniff the wind for him.
There are alot of 'let's be extremely cautious' articles across the press today. So...if he wades in for a big attack and gets outvoted on it in parliament my assumption 1 will prove to be wrong.
The polling at the top of this thread shows that the public have it about right. There are no good guys in the Middle East.
I suspect Dave will water things down and seek an action that is much more limited than some expect.
Parliament voting against an attack (especially if most of the dissenters are LD and Labour) might be a win-win for Cameron.
Short term, he can sell it as putting the option in front of parliament. Long-term, as the slaughters and chemical attacks continue, he can be seen as a wise sage ("this would not have happened if we'd done what we wanted").
Indeed, it could be argued that the situation in Syria would be much better if Hollande and Cameron had had their way back in 2011 and 2012, before the foreign insurgent got heavily involved. An interesting alternative history.
1.The US are going to bomb Assad whatever the British Parliament says. 2.What was "Cameron's way" back in 2011?
So, let the US get on with it...they don't need us. We shouldn't pay the price for Obama's 'red-lines'
I can never quite work out who Anti-EU Tories want alliances with.
I must have missed the 'we have to agree with the US no matter what' part of the handbook. That worked out well for us back in 2003 didn't it...
Brent Crude up by ~6% over the last few days. You could see petrol prices up in a week or so - how will that go down with the electorate and their view on the UK supporting miiltary action in Syria.
Stay out of Syria, Dave. There will be no victory in Syria, just a long drawn out civil war between a semi-secular government and Islamists/fundamentalists that we should not get dragged into.
Surely the endgame is a British/American/French peacekeeping force which could be over 100,000 troops that need to be sent in. Very few would want another Iraq/Afghanistan style situation where we are stuck there because the new regime is so unstable and corrupt that the people are always in danger of being persecuted or killed.
The more I read about the FSA the less convinced I am that they are better than Assad. It seems like a motley crew of fundamentalists, terrorist groups and Islamists. I see absolutely no tactical advantage in allying ourselves with this group of people. Provide humanitarian aid and possibly send in tactical strikes against the chemical warfare plants/factories, that's as far as we should go.
However, I am still not convinced that it was Assad that used the chemical weapons, the FSA seem so fractious that one faction could have gotten hold of some and used it against a rival faction. Even then destroying the chemical weapons makes sense, the last people we want such weapons to fall into the hands of is this group. For those people that say Assad is worse, well so far Assad has had these weapons of mass destruction and not used them against Israel despite being next door. I do not have the same faith in the FSA.
A British PM "calling for Assad to resign" is meaningless without US power. Blair dragged the US into Kosovo, Britain alone could've done nothing.
Whats Obama going to do to get Assad to resign? Throw a couple of cruise missiles into the country to hit a few bases seems to be the extent of 'US power' at the moment.
What's the endgame and ultimately aim of this, and how far is Obama going to go?
There's no answer to those questions at the moment.
There are only two possible reasons for intervening in a foreign war.
1 It is in British interests to do so.
2 It is morally the right thing to do. In other words, we are acting as the self-selected world's policeman. That is a perfectly valid approach, and was the British position until Suez.
Not quite self-selected. The permanent members of the UNSC were referred to as the world's policemen and as such occupy a privilaged position - and with privilage comes responsibility. Also, selected by history, in that in reality, only the UNSCPM have the force capable of intervening (albeit with a larger range among them than was the case in 1945).
This may well reflect the UKIP tendency of that paper these days but nearly 90% opposed does send yet another message. Whatever reason Cameron has for pushing this domestic politics is not it.
Mr Cameron being perceived as 'strong' is reported to be part of CCHQ's electoral strategy.
A British PM "calling for Assad to resign" is meaningless without US power. Blair dragged the US into Kosovo, Britain alone could've done nothing.
What it does is apply pressure, both on Syria and the US, in the same way the UK and France put pressure on the US to intervene in Libya. Eventually the US agreed to co-sponsor the no-fly zone in the UNSC, and the resultant action was limited and decisive.
Iain @Iain_33 @Clareyh@nby83 there were 6 six votes on Iraq between Sept 02 & March 03 Diane Abbott voted against the Blair government on all 6 occasions
According to Y0kel, who seems more informed and is certainly more interesting on these matters than the MSM the chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian 4th division under the control of Assad's brother.
If the signal intelligence is backed up by some confirmation on the ground, eg identification of the sort of munition used, I wonder if a way forward would be to demand that Syria hand the brother over for trial before the International Criminal Court.
This would set a clear and useful precedent that chemical weapons are unacceptable, it would not cause collateral deaths, it would not strengthen the bunch of nutters that are the opposition and given that there would be a trial it just might be acceptable to the Russians.
If such a proposal was made it just might form the basis of a UN security council agreement. I really think it is worth a try. The current path is so fraught with problems as to be nothing but a last resort. This could arise if Syria refused to hand the brother over but we would then have a much better basis and a clear objective, neither of which we have at the moment.
There's a lot in that and it is worth a try, although how keen China and Russia (or the US for that matter) would be to involve the ICC is open to question and if such an initiative failed, it would not only delay matters further but establish just how little support there is for action, rather than how much (this is not necessarily a bad thing). Also, for it to be effective, any demand would have to be backed up by the threat of force, so there's always the danger of the arm in the mangle.
I hope London / Washington strategists are earning their crusts today. Assad must have known that chemical weapons would pull the West into this. The question is why he wants the West involved and how we avoid doing his bidding.
Possibilities:
1. He thinks the West is weak and after Iraq isn't going to get involved no matter what it's said.
2. He thinks that any Western involvement will be minimal and can be shrugged off.
3. He thinks he can give the West enough of a bloody nose if it does get involved that they'll retreat.
4. He thinks that Western involvement will bring in counterbalancing allies on his side.
5. He thought the chemical weapons of themselves would turn the tide and so Western involvement would be too little too late.
6. He was rolling the dice and crossing his fingers.
Plato/Moniker - If she stayed Labour during the Blair years she will not defect now, and Galloway actually backed Ed Miliband over his brother anyway
I think this is Claire Short tactics - threaten again and again and do nothing much. She's Shad Public Health spokesbod - hardly a big decision either way.
I am undecided about Syria. Whether I support or not will probably depend on the case put forward during the debate tomorrow. I'm trying to get loads of work done today to clear the decks so I can watch the whole thing. I can only hope that the speeches on both sides are heartfelt and informative.
My current thoughts are detailed below. These will almost certainly change as facts come in.
The risks of going in: *) We support the wrong side, if there is a 'wrong' or 'right' side any more. *) We create long-term hatred towards us and risk retribution attacks against us directly. However, inaction could also cause hatred towards us: "why aren't you helping?" *) We end up killing civilians instead of aiding them. *) We risk our armed forces. *) We support and arm groups that are positively hostile towards us. *) We prolong the conflict (although it's already very prolonged).
The risks of staying out: *) Other regimes know they can use chemical weapons indiscriminately, both internally and externally. *) We risk more chemical and conventional attacks inside Syria, by all sides. *) We risk groups inside Syria using weapons against the camps intra- and extra-Syria, especially Turkey. Many insurgents are believed to be coming through those camps. *) The conflict develops into a stalemate, continues for longer and kills more non-combatants. *) Chemical weapons become more of a direct threat against us. *) Regimes do more research into weapons of mass destruction. *) Our campaign against North Korea and Iran developing nuclear weapons becomes much harder, as they will see our threats as toothless.
Aims: Currently I think that *if* we go in militarily, then it has to be not to help Assad or the rebels, but to help the non-combatants. Any action should be directed towards that, although that would include taking out chemical weapons sites, stores and precursors.
Like others calling for intervention in The Balkans in 1912 and 1913, one should be more careful about what they wish for. If Assad went, who follows him?
Long-term strategy: Action should be backed up with long-term strategy, and this can only be for a negotiated settlement. Ideally any military or diplomatic action would put maximum pressure on all the sides to come to the negotiating table. This is obviously easier said than done.
If we do not go in militarily, pressure has to be put on neighbouring countries not to interfere too strongly, and any interference only being to help non-combatants (e.g. Turkey's aid to refugees). That includes our own country, as well as Russia, Qatar and others. Military aid to *all* sides needs to stop. Sadly, that course of action has its own risks and problems.
I remember some on here criticising Cameron robustly for the Libyan intervention. I remember some on here saying that Cameron was taking the wrong stance last year when he wanted to intervene in Syria. Perhaps we would be in a better situation now if he had had his way. It is certainly hard to imagine the situation in Syria being much worse.
The UN: The UN and the UN Security Council is toothless as long as Russia vetoes international action against Syria in the UNSC. However they could be taking a different tack (perhaps they're already doing this): investigations to ensure that any side who used chemical weapons during this conflict, whether government or rebel, is rigorously prosecuted for their use. The UN should let it be known that leaders will be held personally responsible for their use. Caroline Lucas is right about this, and the International Criminal Court should have more teeth in all directions. It would be good if the US/UK/France took this line as well.
That could be extended to the Assad regime, even if the weapons were used by rebels. If it can be proved that rebel use of weapons was from governmental stocks, then the Assad government should be held responsible for not keeping them safe.It could also be extended to other countries who have sent in fighters, for instance Lebanon, if it is discovered that their troops have used such weapons.
However such threats - by their very nature long-term - might not have much of a deterrent effect when the leader and the state itself is facing an existential crisis.
It is one of these situations where Cameron, Obama and Hollande do not face a 'right' answer, especially when their actions will be viewed by historians in a few decades. I do not envy them this decision.
At least when SamCam was worried about the polar bears all Dave had to do was put a non-working windmill on their house.
Has anyone any ideas what the next fashionable causes among Soho Bohos are likely to be ?
But its more fuel for the theory that government policy is driven by Dave's insecurities.
You are sounding pretty deranged. Perhaps you could explain how Dave's insecurities also have influenced Hague, Miliband, Obama, Kerry, Hollande, Fabius, the US, the Arab League, Merkel, the Turkish government, and all those other political leaders around the world who, like Cameron, are soberly evaluating the possibility of limited action.
There is no right answer here. No easy solution, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. A blitz of Assad's chemical weapons is probably on balance the best solution. And by a blitz I mean a blitz. Aerial bombardment over 2 or 3 days, no more - playing it similiar to the Libyan airstrikes would be best methinks. Libya is not perfect, of course the entire Arab area has massive ethnic/religious tensions - these can not be solved by any bomb or gun.
So -
Targeted strikes a la Libya, with a clearly known (Not necessarily publicly defined) time-scale and objective(s)
And
Absolutely NO mission creep. None. We do not need another Iraq.
Jess Brammar @jessbrammar April-June, 1.6m kids in workless households,14% of all kids. 297k households where no-one had ever worked - 224k if excl student households
According to Y0kel, who seems more informed and is certainly more interesting on these matters than the MSM the chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian 4th division under the control of Assad's brother.
If the signal intelligence is backed up by some confirmation on the ground, eg identification of the sort of munition used, I wonder if a way forward would be to demand that Syria hand the brother over for trial before the International Criminal Court.
This would set a clear and useful precedent that chemical weapons are unacceptable, it would not cause collateral deaths, it would not strengthen the bunch of nutters that are the opposition and given that there would be a trial it just might be acceptable to the Russians.
If such a proposal was made it just might form the basis of a UN security council agreement. I really think it is worth a try. The current path is so fraught with problems as to be nothing but a last resort. This could arise if Syria refused to hand the brother over but we would then have a much better basis and a clear objective, neither of which we have at the moment.
There's a lot in that and it is worth a try, although how keen China and Russia (or the US for that matter) would be to involve the ICC is open to question and if such an initiative failed, it would not only delay matters further but establish just how little support there is for action, rather than how much (this is not necessarily a bad thing). Also, for it to be effective, any demand would have to be backed up by the threat of force, so there's always the danger of the arm in the mangle.
Frankly I am trying to find a way that the government can get itself out of the large and completely unnecessary hole it has dug for itself. The proposal focusses on personal responsibility and it at least delays the random killing to punish a country for, err, random killing.
I hope London / Washington strategists are earning their crusts today. Assad must have known that chemical weapons would pull the West into this. The question is why he wants the West involved and how we avoid doing his bidding.
Possibilities:
1. He thinks the West is weak and after Iraq isn't going to get involved no matter what it's said.
2. He thinks that any Western involvement will be minimal and can be shrugged off.
3. He thinks he can give the West enough of a bloody nose if it does get involved that they'll retreat.
4. He thinks that Western involvement will bring in counterbalancing allies on his side.
5. He thought the chemical weapons of themselves would turn the tide and so Western involvement would be too little too late.
6. He was rolling the dice and crossing his fingers.
I hope London / Washington strategists are earning their crusts today. Assad must have known that chemical weapons would pull the West into this. The question is why he wants the West involved and how we avoid doing his bidding.
Possibilities:
1. He thinks the West is weak and after Iraq isn't going to get involved no matter what it's said.
2. He thinks that any Western involvement will be minimal and can be shrugged off.
3. He thinks he can give the West enough of a bloody nose if it does get involved that they'll retreat.
4. He thinks that Western involvement will bring in counterbalancing allies on his side.
5. He thought the chemical weapons of themselves would turn the tide and so Western involvement would be too little too late.
6. He was rolling the dice and crossing his fingers.
I would add.
1) Syrian generals were acting independently and possibly want to get rid of Assad.
2) Assad is trying to create a stalemate that ensures his survival.
3) Assad is hoping to broaden the conflict from a purely Syrian civil war. Less focus on him, the better in the long-term.
Using logic to second guess anyone prepared to use chemical weapons against civilians is probably an illogical thing to do.
Not at all. To assume they share the same moral and ethical consensus as a western liberal would be though. Assad's values are brutal and power-based, as were Saddam's. That doesn't mean that they weren't rationalising logically, on their own terms.
Nothing will happen with the United Nations. everyone knows that. With Russia and China on the SC, nothing will happen there. The UN is a failure when it comes to these things.
"The Adam Smith Institute, in mischievous mode, has encouraged Paddy Power to open betting markets covering the rate of UK inflation and the rate of unemployment on 1 June 2015. It's 9-4 that CPI inflation will be 3.01%-4% and 5-2 that unemployment will still be in the 7%-8% range."
Mr. Slackbladder, agreed. That would make it appear that Labour's position is effectively to use the UN as a pretext for not supporting military action. That's probably clever politically, even if it's disingenuous.
Mr. Slackbladder, agreed. That would make it appear that Labour's position is effectively to use the UN as a pretext for not supporting military action. That's probably clever politically, even if it's disingenuous.
Absolutely.
So what is Miliband's position?.. for or against action? Seems to me he's riding both horses again.
@JJ – “I am undecided about Syria. Whether I support or not will probably depend on the case put forward during the debate tomorrow.”
Ditto – A lot of stuff and nonsense being spouted on here this morning, we simply have no idea what course of ‘action’ will be proposed on Thursday, if any. One thing is for sure, it had better be something more substantial than a 3 year old dossier downloaded from the internet to make a convincing case.
I would guess, and it's no more than that, that he'll suggest he wants a strong response but that it must come via the UN. The advantage is he gets to say "Oh, I'm tough enough to take the action but I want it to be definitely legal*". The downside is that it may look like he's not tough enough [NB not necessarily bad in this instance as most seem to be against intervention] and is hiding behind bureaucracy/the rulebook to try and hide it.
*Am I the only one who finds legal/illegal war to be a strange concept? And who thought/thinks the responsibility for deciding which a war is should be farmed out to an organisation which has Russia and China able to wield a veto?
@SeantT - Life is complicated, something I thought you'd have figured out by now. Certainly citing things which happened over 40 years ago in Vietnam is not terribly relevant to the argument, any more than the fact that Britain was involved in the slave trade in the eighteenth century is an argument that Britain is hypocritical in opposing slavery today.
Anyway, I was answering your question. Personally I haven't yet taken a view on the issue; like any sensible person, I'm waiting to see what exactly is proposed and the justification for it.
Mr. Slackbladder, agreed. That would make it appear that Labour's position is effectively to use the UN as a pretext for not supporting military action. That's probably clever politically, even if it's disingenuous.
Absolutely.
So what is Miliband's position?.. for or against action? Seems to me he's riding both horses again.
Miliband just got Cameron to go to the UN, thats seems to be his position.
And we know how well going to the UN worked in 2003 don't we.. lets see what happens there.
It does seem likely that Assad has used chemical weapons, and there's a case for having some red lines which everyone thinks it unwise to cross and showing it has real costs if one does. But we shouldn't be killing people unless we're sure it'll have net benefits, and it's hard to see how we can be remotely sure.
I find it ironic that on this occasion we know that Assad has chemical weapons, and we can be fairly certain that he has used them [recently], yet in 2003 there were former weapons inspectors who went on the record before the war to say that they doubted that Saddam still had any WMD. Yet, because the US/UK cried wolf in 2003 there's now more opposition to intervention when there is more evidence to support it.
I've come to the view that one of the important features of democracy is the rule of law and due process. So if Obama et al want to send a message it seems to me that it is important that they follow due process.
" ...Could opinion change more rapidly in the days to come? The week before the Iraq war ten years ago, we found that only 32% wanted Britain to send troops to Iraq if the United Nations failed to authorise military action. Yet when we did take part in the invasion without UN approval, support rose instantly to 50% – and peaked at 66% when Baghdad fell to American troops.
Then, of course, support ebbed as weapons of mass destruction failed to materialise and Iraq remained mired in violence. My guess – and YouGov polls in the days ahead will prove me right or wrong – is that if Cameron does order a limited missile attack, then more people than today, and possibly a majority, would then back it. For one thing, a quarter of the public currently say “don’t know”; I suspect that many of them would back “our troops” once they are in action.
A guess, though, is not a guarantee. If the Prime Minister misjudges the military or diplomatic consequences of his decision; if some missiles go astray and kill innocent civilians; if British public opinion remains hostile to any involvement of British troops and weapons – then the repercussions could be extremely serious..."
The UN is a smokescreen: by 'UN' what is actually meant is Vladimir Putin (China will make disapproving noises but isn't really involved).
Now, if we can get at least grudging acquiescence from Putin, that's a great prize, and greatly reduces the dangers of any particular course of action. But let's not kid ourselves that this is anything to so with some great moral authority of the UN.
Mr. Me, we can't be certain Assad used them. Whilst I think that the likeliest possibility, it's entirely possible that one faction or other of rebels (which include Al-Qaeda, we should remember) have possession of such weapons.
Why don't you include Libya as our last serious intervention? The Syrian intervention, if it happens, will probably be much more like Libya than Iraq.
The rebels in Libya were much more advanced than they are in Syria. In addition, Libya was isolated, both geographically and politically.
Very different.
You miss the point. SeanT said the last serious intervention was Iraq. I have heard no-one seriously suggesting that we put tens of thousands of troops on teh ground and invade the country.
Any action is almost certainly going to be much more like Libya than Iraq.
Certainly citing things which happened over 40 years ago in Vietnam is not terribly relevant to the argument, any more than the fact that Britain was involved in the slave trade in the eighteenth century is an argument that Britain is hypocritical in opposing slavery today.
Citing events that lie within living memory is certainly more relevant than citing those in distant history.
Mr. Me, we can't be certain Assad used them. Whilst I think that the likeliest possibility, it's entirely possible that one faction or other of rebels (which include Al-Qaeda, we should remember) have possession of such weapons.
Let's see what evidence is released before tomorrow's debate, and how certain that evidence is.
As I said below, I would like to see the international community pro-actively let it be known that *any* side who used chemical weapons is going to be liable to trial after the conflict's resolved, whether it be the Syrians or rebels. For some reason that message has not really been sent out.
Is it because of international disagreement about such a course of action, or do they lack the ability to give such a threat?
The rebels in Libya were much more advanced than they are in Syria.
Advanced ? Which way - military hardware, organisation, tactical position(s) within the country ?
One thing Libya has is a very 'clean' Geography, very flat - one long coastal road between the two major cities of import (Benghazi, Tripoli). Afghanistan has just about the worst geography in terms of enabling a quick war.
Mr. T, cheers for posting that. I didn't know the US had used chemical weapons in Vietnam, and I'm surprised that hasn't been raised more (not least by the Syrian Government).
"In the run-up to the fiftieth anniversary of King’s speech, there’s been a great deal of debate about what has changed, especially for America’s blacks. But perhaps the most sweeping, dramatic change has been in attitudes towards the very idea of America. Today, cheap anti-Americanism is the glue that holds so-called liberals and radicals together. Tapping one’s toe to the Green Day song “American Idiot” while laughing knowingly at the fallacy of the American Dream is what passes for being edgy these days. Both within and without America, many Leftish activists and serious thinkers view America as dumb, fat, polluting, reckless and unwittingly hilarious, founded by narcissists and drunks, a “greedy and overweening power”, as the New Statesman said in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Where the battered blacks who marched on Washington in the 1960s wanted in on the American Dream, today’s so-called radicals want out of it. They love nothing more than mocking the many myths of America from a safe, comfy distance. In fact, this profound tension between poor blacks who wanted to share in America’s historic promises and its “vast ocean of material prosperity” and comfortably-off, largely white radicals who want only to sneer at America existed back in 1963. As Dr King and his supporters marched to demand full and free access to the American way of life, elsewhere in America a New Left sensibility was emerging that wanted only to spit and guffaw at the American way of life.
Mr. Slackbladder, agreed. That would make it appear that Labour's position is effectively to use the UN as a pretext for not supporting military action. That's probably clever politically, even if it's disingenuous.
Absolutely.
So what is Miliband's position?.. for or against action? Seems to me he's riding both horses again.
Miliband just got Cameron to go to the UN, thats seems to be his position.
A UN with Assad's ally Russia on the security council. If Ed opposes action he should oppose it. If he supports it, he should support it. Demanding something he knows won't happen in terms of Russian support (I am 90% they would VETO) is political cowardice.
I agree on this obsession with wars being legal/illegal.
Wars involve the deliberate extrajudicial killing of people, nessecary sometimes, but not a matter for civil authorities. There should be no room for civilian lawyers on a battlefield
I would guess, and it's no more than that, that he'll suggest he wants a strong response but that it must come via the UN. The advantage is he gets to say "Oh, I'm tough enough to take the action but I want it to be definitely legal*". The downside is that it may look like he's not tough enough [NB not necessarily bad in this instance as most seem to be against intervention] and is hiding behind bureaucracy/the rulebook to try and hide it.
*Am I the only one who finds legal/illegal war to be a strange concept? And who thought/thinks the responsibility for deciding which a war is should be farmed out to an organisation which has Russia and China able to wield a veto?
I find it ironic that on this occasion we know that Assad has chemical weapons, and we can be fairly certain that he has used them [recently], yet in 2003 there were former weapons inspectors who went on the record before the war to say that they doubted that Saddam still had any WMD. Yet, because the US/UK cried wolf in 2003 there's now more opposition to intervention when there is more evidence to support it.
This is the poison that Iraq has left in the UK system. It seems like now the UK public is opposing exactly the kind of intervention that it said Iraq wasnt.
And yet our European allies are very much in favour of intervention because they dont have this Iraq poison in their system. If we dont act when a mad dictator uses chemical weapons against his own citizens, we will never act again.
Sometimes life doesn't give you a nice option - just two or three equally crappy ones and you have to decide which is the least worst alternative ?
It seems to me we have three crappy options - a) full-scale intervention with soldiers on ground with the aim of toppling Assad and effectively running the country pending its economic political and social reconstruction
b) do nothing - apart from provide such humanitarian assistance as we can for the camps in Iraq, Turkey and Jordan possibly providing UN-monitored "corridors" to allow civilians out of places like Aleppo.
c) airstrikes on identified bases or locations of chemical weapons.
So which is the least worst ?
I note oil has moved higher since this began to develop and as OGH has pointed out, the relationship between fuel prices and voting intention is one worth noting.
As to the Government motion tomorrow - let's see what it is and has to say. A motion emphasising the humanitarian and diplomatic areas would find, I think, general support. I imagine one featuring the UN would be hard to oppose.
The UN is a smokescreen: by 'UN' what is actually meant is Vladimir Putin (China will make disapproving noises but isn't really involved).
Now, if we can get at least grudging acquiescence from Putin, that's a great prize, and greatly reduces the dangers of any particular course of action. But let's not kid ourselves that this is anything to so with some great moral authority of the UN.
It makes sense to go to the UN for a number of reasons (not least to get Israel and the Arab League voting on the same side).
No one is dumb enough to argue that Russia can define legality though are they? Surely not Nick Clegg for instance, surely he wouldnt argue that without UN approval intervention is illegal.
If we go to the UN, and Putin (And possibly China) uses a veto does Ed Miliband approve ?
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10269115/Man-who-said-David-Cameron-is-out-of-touch-lands-job-as-his-press-secretary.html
Labour sources say expect to whip Syria vote. If Miliband backs military intervention, many Labour MPs will feel uneasy post-Iraq
1. He's not a total idiot; and
2. His people read opinion polls and sniff the wind for him.
There are alot of 'let's be extremely cautious' articles across the press today. So...if he wades in for a big attack and gets outvoted on it in parliament my assumption 1 will prove to be wrong.
The polling at the top of this thread shows that the public have it about right. There are no good guys in the Middle East.
I suspect Dave will water things down and seek an action that is much more limited than some expect.
Older generations far more opposed to use of UK troops in Syria than younger generations, ComRes ITV News poll finds itv.co/19YmKs0
http://www.respectparty.org/?m=0
If the signal intelligence is backed up by some confirmation on the ground, eg identification of the sort of munition used, I wonder if a way forward would be to demand that Syria hand the brother over for trial before the International Criminal Court.
This would set a clear and useful precedent that chemical weapons are unacceptable, it would not cause collateral deaths, it would not strengthen the bunch of nutters that are the opposition and given that there would be a trial it just might be acceptable to the Russians.
If such a proposal was made it just might form the basis of a UN security council agreement. I really think it is worth a try. The current path is so fraught with problems as to be nothing but a last resort. This could arise if Syria refused to hand the brother over but we would then have a much better basis and a clear objective, neither of which we have at the moment.
I really do not like either side, this is one to sit out.
Not getting my vote though!
1 It is in British interests to do so.
2 It is morally the right thing to do. In other words, we are acting as the self-selected world's policeman. That is a perfectly valid approach, and was the British position until Suez.
1 above does not apply.
There is no appetite in the country for the UK to re-adopt role 2. Sometimes, the govt is in front of popular opinion---it has a view which is more informed and more valid than the great British public.
However, the govt has to be absolutely certain it is right when it threatens actions which are so out-of-step with public opinion. It cannot have that certainty.
Support Farage.
This may well reflect the UKIP tendency of that paper these days but nearly 90% opposed does send yet another message. Whatever reason Cameron has for pushing this domestic politics is not it.
Short term, he can sell it as putting the option in front of parliament. Long-term, as the slaughters and chemical attacks continue, he can be seen as a wise sage ("this would not have happened if we'd done what we wanted").
Indeed, it could be argued that the situation in Syria would be much better if Hollande and Cameron had had their way back in 2011 and 2012, before the foreign insurgents got heavily involved. An interesting alternative history.
Edit for typo
Fine post. The idea of bombing with no other war aim other than delivering a collective punishment is so crude and brutal it's from another century. Your idea to corner the guilty parties and demand they face justice is a good one. If the idea is to impose some recognizable international law I can't think of anything more effective than making individuals responsible
PoliticsHome @politicshome
.@HackneyAbbott tells #R4today "the British public have seen this movie - they know how it ends" #Syria #Iraq
If Dave pushes for an attack but gets outvoted it would be politically disastrous for him. (See DT blogs on this). He'd look out of touch, aggressive and impotent all in one. He'll want to be on the winning side of a vote. So I expect him to tailor what is voted for accordingly. If he doesn't then he is a knob who deserves to get outvoted and lose authority.
1. There is a relative order of ghastliness even among atrocities. Mass murder with genocidal intent is worse than mass murder and gassing is worse than bombing. You may dissent from either view but they are presumably what the human race as a whole believes, setting as how we have international conventions dealing with both issues.
2. It is fun to pretend that politicians you disagree with are lying self interested shitbags. It is quite possible that they aren't and that all of Miliband, Clegg and Cameron (because all three potentially have an influence on the outcome) are decent men who feel faced with a horrible dilemma: on the one hand blah blah blah, on the other hand gassed children.
3. It is always easier to find cogent arguments against any given course of action than for it.
Any deficiency in your opening will be starkly and often fatally obvious by the time you get to the endgame - viz Iraq2.
At present I just cannot vizualise the end game if military intervention is started in Syria and I believe that nobody can say honestly that they can - except potentially starting off a form of armageddon/ Holy War that could spread throughout much of Asia. Today there are more fundamental/radical Islamic groups who wish rule using Islamic law (and not secular law) than there was fifty years ago and few of them agree with each other. TE Laurence had a huge problem in bringing the Arab tribes together and those alliances dissolved in their victory at Damascus.
1. It is highly likely that Syria will 'protect' key people/installations with civilians and so claim that the West/UN murdered civilians and children.
2. We know that so-called clinical strikes can and do go wrong and the USA has a track record here - more beneficial propaganda for Syria.
3. If after a clinical strike, Syria deploys chemical weapons again (says the West/UN has forced us to defend ourselves from our enemies) - what is the nest step? More strikes - invasion?
4. If Assad and his ilk are wiped out - what then? Will Iran stand idly by? Will Saudi Arabia insulate itself or look to the West for protection?
These large number of unknowns make the risks of military action far too high, however combined civil action with getting Russia onside could work in the end but it would mean controlling and shutting off Syria' borders. There would be a greater exodus of refugees and the West/UN would have to be prepared to look after those people in the interim.
2) Cameron and Hollande have consistently wanted a firmer line on Syria, and wanted to up the pressure on the regime. He has been consistently criticised on here for that posture.
http://metro.co.uk/2011/08/18/david-cameron-syrias-president-bashar-al-assad-must-stand-aside-119291/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8563957/David-Cameron-UK-will-not-stand-silent-over-Syria.html
http://rt.com/news/cameron-arms-opposition-syria-292/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/18/syria-david-cameron-nicol_n_930298.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8895146/Call-for-David-Cameron-to-lead-action-against-Syria.html
And many more.
Assad had nothing to gain from the attack... his enemies, or other parties do. Which should give at least cause for thought. You have Syria (Assad), Al-Qaeda/various islamists, Iran, with Russia and China as other loose allies...
That's a toxic mix. Sometimes the way to win a game, is not to play.
So it's not just that there isn't a Labour groundswell, there isn't one in the general public either, in my opinion. Ask people what they think and they'll say hmm, we probably shouldn't get involved, but it's not catching fire as a major popular issue at all. Yet, anyway.
Surely the endgame is a British/American/French peacekeeping force which could be over 100,000 troops that need to be sent in. Very few would want another Iraq/Afghanistan style situation where we are stuck there because the new regime is so unstable and corrupt that the people are always in danger of being persecuted or killed.
The more I read about the FSA the less convinced I am that they are better than Assad. It seems like a motley crew of fundamentalists, terrorist groups and Islamists. I see absolutely no tactical advantage in allying ourselves with this group of people. Provide humanitarian aid and possibly send in tactical strikes against the chemical warfare plants/factories, that's as far as we should go.
However, I am still not convinced that it was Assad that used the chemical weapons, the FSA seem so fractious that one faction could have gotten hold of some and used it against a rival faction. Even then destroying the chemical weapons makes sense, the last people we want such weapons to fall into the hands of is this group. For those people that say Assad is worse, well so far Assad has had these weapons of mass destruction and not used them against Israel despite being next door. I do not have the same faith in the FSA.
What's the endgame and ultimately aim of this, and how far is Obama going to go?
There's no answer to those questions at the moment.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2012/03/cameron-is-the-message.html
So in the same as Blair in Kosovo, France and the UK dragged a reluctant US into Libya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
Such calls can be the first step on a long road. The alternative is not to say anything, and nothing happening.
17.1% of all households #workless in 2013, a total of 3.5m, down from 17.9% last year: bit.ly/14AjP4n
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/27/diane-abbott-labour-syria
Iain @Iain_33
@Clareyh @nby83 there were 6 six votes on Iraq between Sept 02 & March 03 Diane Abbott voted against the Blair government on all 6 occasions
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-08-28/alastair-campbell-hugely-irresponsible-if-world-did-not-act-on-syria/
Dave the self confessed Heir to Blair being offered advice on Syria by Alistair Campbell.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/election-live-third-debate-coalition-costings/4917068
Lowest percentage of workless households since 1996: youtu.be/Xv4Zm3e2m7E
1. He thinks the West is weak and after Iraq isn't going to get involved no matter what it's said.
2. He thinks that any Western involvement will be minimal and can be shrugged off.
3. He thinks he can give the West enough of a bloody nose if it does get involved that they'll retreat.
4. He thinks that Western involvement will bring in counterbalancing allies on his side.
5. He thought the chemical weapons of themselves would turn the tide and so Western involvement would be too little too late.
6. He was rolling the dice and crossing his fingers.
My current thoughts are detailed below. These will almost certainly change as facts come in.
The risks of going in:
*) We support the wrong side, if there is a 'wrong' or 'right' side any more.
*) We create long-term hatred towards us and risk retribution attacks against us directly. However, inaction could also cause hatred towards us: "why aren't you helping?"
*) We end up killing civilians instead of aiding them.
*) We risk our armed forces.
*) We support and arm groups that are positively hostile towards us.
*) We prolong the conflict (although it's already very prolonged).
The risks of staying out:
*) Other regimes know they can use chemical weapons indiscriminately, both internally and externally.
*) We risk more chemical and conventional attacks inside Syria, by all sides.
*) We risk groups inside Syria using weapons against the camps intra- and extra-Syria, especially Turkey. Many insurgents are believed to be coming through those camps.
*) The conflict develops into a stalemate, continues for longer and kills more non-combatants.
*) Chemical weapons become more of a direct threat against us.
*) Regimes do more research into weapons of mass destruction.
*) Our campaign against North Korea and Iran developing nuclear weapons becomes much harder, as they will see our threats as toothless.
Aims:
Currently I think that *if* we go in militarily, then it has to be not to help Assad or the rebels, but to help the non-combatants. Any action should be directed towards that, although that would include taking out chemical weapons sites, stores and precursors.
(tbc)
Long-term strategy:
Action should be backed up with long-term strategy, and this can only be for a negotiated settlement. Ideally any military or diplomatic action would put maximum pressure on all the sides to come to the negotiating table. This is obviously easier said than done.
If we do not go in militarily, pressure has to be put on neighbouring countries not to interfere too strongly, and any interference only being to help non-combatants (e.g. Turkey's aid to refugees). That includes our own country, as well as Russia, Qatar and others. Military aid to *all* sides needs to stop. Sadly, that course of action has its own risks and problems.
I remember some on here criticising Cameron robustly for the Libyan intervention. I remember some on here saying that Cameron was taking the wrong stance last year when he wanted to intervene in Syria. Perhaps we would be in a better situation now if he had had his way. It is certainly hard to imagine the situation in Syria being much worse.
The UN:
The UN and the UN Security Council is toothless as long as Russia vetoes international action against Syria in the UNSC. However they could be taking a different tack (perhaps they're already doing this): investigations to ensure that any side who used chemical weapons during this conflict, whether government or rebel, is rigorously prosecuted for their use. The UN should let it be known that leaders will be held personally responsible for their use. Caroline Lucas is right about this, and the International Criminal Court should have more teeth in all directions. It would be good if the US/UK/France took this line as well.
That could be extended to the Assad regime, even if the weapons were used by rebels. If it can be proved that rebel use of weapons was from governmental stocks, then the Assad government should be held responsible for not keeping them safe.It could also be extended to other countries who have sent in fighters, for instance Lebanon, if it is discovered that their troops have used such weapons.
However such threats - by their very nature long-term - might not have much of a deterrent effect when the leader and the state itself is facing an existential crisis.
It is one of these situations where Cameron, Obama and Hollande do not face a 'right' answer, especially when their actions will be viewed by historians in a few decades. I do not envy them this decision.
There is no right answer here. No easy solution, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. A blitz of Assad's chemical weapons is probably on balance the best solution. And by a blitz I mean a blitz. Aerial bombardment over 2 or 3 days, no more - playing it similiar to the Libyan airstrikes would be best methinks. Libya is not perfect, of course the entire Arab area has massive ethnic/religious tensions - these can not be solved by any bomb or gun.
So -
Targeted strikes a la Libya, with a clearly known (Not necessarily publicly defined) time-scale and objective(s)
And
Absolutely NO mission creep. None. We do not need another Iraq.
90,000 people per day attending
650 (female only) portable toilets; 100 male.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403467/Reading-Festival-2013--fetch-dustpan-brush.html
April-June, 1.6m kids in workless households,14% of all kids. 297k households where no-one had ever worked - 224k if excl student households
1) Syrian generals were acting independently and possibly want to get rid of Assad.
2) Assad is trying to create a stalemate that ensures his survival.
3) Assad is hoping to broaden the conflict from a purely Syrian civil war. Less focus on him, the better in the long-term.
4) Assad is not rational.
The fact that Russia or China can veto any security council resolution makes it rather silly to treat the council thus.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2013/aug/27/adam-smith-institute-economic-forecasting?CMP=twt_gu
So what is Miliband's position?.. for or against action? Seems to me he's riding both horses again.
Ditto – A lot of stuff and nonsense being spouted on here this morning, we simply have no idea what course of ‘action’ will be proposed on Thursday, if any. One thing is for sure, it had better be something more substantial than a 3 year old dossier downloaded from the internet to make a convincing case.
Very different.
*Am I the only one who finds legal/illegal war to be a strange concept? And who thought/thinks the responsibility for deciding which a war is should be farmed out to an organisation which has Russia and China able to wield a veto?
Anyway, I was answering your question. Personally I haven't yet taken a view on the issue; like any sensible person, I'm waiting to see what exactly is proposed and the justification for it.
I've come to the view that one of the important features of democracy is the rule of law and due process. So if Obama et al want to send a message it seems to me that it is important that they follow due process.
" ...Could opinion change more rapidly in the days to come? The week before the Iraq war ten years ago, we found that only 32% wanted Britain to send troops to Iraq if the United Nations failed to authorise military action. Yet when we did take part in the invasion without UN approval, support rose instantly to 50% – and peaked at 66% when Baghdad fell to American troops.
Then, of course, support ebbed as weapons of mass destruction failed to materialise and Iraq remained mired in violence. My guess – and YouGov polls in the days ahead will prove me right or wrong – is that if Cameron does order a limited missile attack, then more people than today, and possibly a majority, would then back it. For one thing, a quarter of the public currently say “don’t know”; I suspect that many of them would back “our troops” once they are in action.
A guess, though, is not a guarantee. If the Prime Minister misjudges the military or diplomatic consequences of his decision; if some missiles go astray and kill innocent civilians; if British public opinion remains hostile to any involvement of British troops and weapons – then the repercussions could be extremely serious..."
Now, if we can get at least grudging acquiescence from Putin, that's a great prize, and greatly reduces the dangers of any particular course of action. But let's not kid ourselves that this is anything to so with some great moral authority of the UN.
Any action is almost certainly going to be much more like Libya than Iraq.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/iraq-deadliest-month-five-years
As I said below, I would like to see the international community pro-actively let it be known that *any* side who used chemical weapons is going to be liable to trial after the conflict's resolved, whether it be the Syrians or rebels. For some reason that message has not really been sent out.
Is it because of international disagreement about such a course of action, or do they lack the ability to give such a threat?
One thing Libya has is a very 'clean' Geography, very flat - one long coastal road between the two major cities of import (Benghazi, Tripoli). Afghanistan has just about the worst geography in terms of enabling a quick war.
Syria ? Somewhere in the middle methinks.
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/iraqi-deaths-from-violence-20032011.html#!/2012/01/iraqi-deaths-from-violence-20032011.html
"In the run-up to the fiftieth anniversary of King’s speech, there’s been a great deal of debate about what has changed, especially for America’s blacks. But perhaps the most sweeping, dramatic change has been in attitudes towards the very idea of America. Today, cheap anti-Americanism is the glue that holds so-called liberals and radicals together. Tapping one’s toe to the Green Day song “American Idiot” while laughing knowingly at the fallacy of the American Dream is what passes for being edgy these days. Both within and without America, many Leftish activists and serious thinkers view America as dumb, fat, polluting, reckless and unwittingly hilarious, founded by narcissists and drunks, a “greedy and overweening power”, as the New Statesman said in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Where the battered blacks who marched on Washington in the 1960s wanted in on the American Dream, today’s so-called radicals want out of it. They love nothing more than mocking the many myths of America from a safe, comfy distance. In fact, this profound tension between poor blacks who wanted to share in America’s historic promises and its “vast ocean of material prosperity” and comfortably-off, largely white radicals who want only to sneer at America existed back in 1963. As Dr King and his supporters marched to demand full and free access to the American way of life, elsewhere in America a New Left sensibility was emerging that wanted only to spit and guffaw at the American way of life.
However, it has no relevance to Syria. You're arguing a moral non sequitur.
Wars involve the deliberate extrajudicial killing of people, nessecary sometimes, but not a matter for civil authorities. There should be no room for civilian lawyers on a battlefield
And yet our European allies are very much in favour of intervention because they dont have this Iraq poison in their system. If we dont act when a mad dictator uses chemical weapons against his own citizens, we will never act again.
Sometimes life doesn't give you a nice option - just two or three equally crappy ones and you have to decide which is the least worst alternative ?
It seems to me we have three crappy options - a) full-scale intervention with soldiers on ground with the aim of toppling Assad and effectively running the country pending its economic political and social reconstruction
b) do nothing - apart from provide such humanitarian assistance as we can for the camps in Iraq, Turkey and Jordan possibly providing UN-monitored "corridors" to allow civilians out of places like Aleppo.
c) airstrikes on identified bases or locations of chemical weapons.
So which is the least worst ?
I note oil has moved higher since this began to develop and as OGH has pointed out, the relationship between fuel prices and voting intention is one worth noting.
As to the Government motion tomorrow - let's see what it is and has to say. A motion emphasising the humanitarian and diplomatic areas would find, I think, general support. I imagine one featuring the UN would be hard to oppose.