A lot has been said about the decision of the House of Commons to vote against British military involvement in Syria to defend the civilian population from chemical weapons being used by Assads government. I cannot see what the problem is. We live in a democracy and our elected officials put forward a motion, it was voted on and they voted against it, end of. I think it is a good result because it stops our RAF being put in harms way and it also stops the civilians we are claiming to be saving from getting rained upon by our freedom bombs and justice explosions that will kill them instead in the name of humanitarianism.
I can fully understand why the worlds powers are talking amongst themselves and to the UN about the situation. It is quite illegal under international law to use chemical weapons and is just wrong to use them against your own people. The death of over a thousand men women and children in the chemical attacks is a crime against humanity and a crime that Assad should be made to pay for one day in an international court. But I don’t have the faith that the air strikes planned by foreign powers on large urban, residential areas will be accurate and successful. I also wonder how an attack by America might be seen and reacted to by Syrias allies Iran, Russia and Hesbollah. The great American ally and construct that is Israel could become a target and even neighbouring countries like Turkey could find themselves being bombed. The war could be extended from a civil one to a regional one and then who knows what the hell might happen and who might get involved. If Turkey is attacked (and technically has already been as bombs have crossed the border and exploded inside Turkey) it could lead to action by the EU and NATO and the UK might have to get involved as part of its mandate to those organisations. This really could become one big mess indeed. But like I said, I’m glad at this point the UK aren’t getting involved because despite the crimes that are being committed in Syria I can’t see civilian lives being saved by having us dropping explosives everywhere. But when the day comes for Assad to be dragged from his palace and thrown to his knees by the opposition I for one will be celebrating. I just hope they keep the fucker alive to face the humiliation of standing in court and the justice of a trial by Syrian people.
Now bombing of Syria aside there has been chat about the role that the UK might or might not now have in the international community as a result of the decision in the commons against the air strikes. So what are these journalists saying? You can only be a big hitter if you are a big aggressive country that elects itself world police and judge and jury over every other nation on the planet? We know that America and France are up for the intervention, but which other countries are weak and no longer have a role to play on the international stage because they oppose foreign intervention. Well Germany. Sadly the biggest economy in Europe opposes it too, so I assume they no longer have a role to play internationally. Who else, well China. As the biggest population and the 2nd largest economy in the world they are meaningless now because they don’t want to see a civil war interfered with in such a direct way by outsiders. Who else, errrrr Iran. Iran is a country that has manoeuvred itself to be one of the most powerful and influential countries in the Middle East. They’ve managed to do this largely because of the West removing the main rival they used to have to that crown, Saddam Hussein. Iran has nuclear enrichment facilities but no one can be sure what for and it has a standing military force of about 550,000 personnel but none of this matters because they have no role to play internationally anymore because they oppose intervention in Syria. See what I’m saying here? The idea that the UK has no place in the modern world over one matter like this is ludicrous at best. I think it is just the Tory supporting media trying to shame politicians into acting when they’ve already spoken – and said no. They want a war because war headlines allow other bad news stories about Tory policies and bad management here in the UK to be hidden on page 27 and buried. But without the war, not only does the Tory government look weak but it won’t be able to shy away from issues at home that are more at the forefront of people’s minds because they are front page headlines and so are likely to cost them votes at the next general election.
The Commons has spoken and for what feels like the first time in a long time, politics seems to be working for the UK, certainly it is on this issue. I disagree with what Assad is doing, I support the Free Syria opposition but the rules of war have to be upheld and if they’re not, when this war is over those responsible for murdering people during it must face the consequences.
PS I know I wrote a post not long ago about Syria and I asked why is the West watching a country implode? I stand by the points made there and here but I do not think a few days worth of air strikes is what is needed. Why aren’t we talking to Syrias allies to try and get them to put pressure on Assad? Why aren’t we encouraging the opposition to act fairly to take the moral high ground? Why aren’t we encouraging them all to avoid committing war crimes? I feel we could do so much more to bring the opposing forces to the peace talks table rather than us being expected to pick a side and fight.