"Gloria, you’ll have perhaps noticed that the UK may be about to go to
war. (However “limited” an air strike might be, if it is against the government
or the people of any state, it is an act of war.)
Here’s my open letter to my MP:
Dear MP,
I fear you face a difficult vote of
conscience in the House quite soon. The vote shouldn’t be whipped, but it
probably will be. Good luck, but please bear this in mind:
If you vote for military action by U.K.
forces, I shall never vote Labour again. Here’s why:
1) It’s taken me years to try to forgive Labour for going to war in
Iraq (at least Mr Milliband has managed an apology), and I cannot forget that
John Reid said, as he committed 3,300 troops to Helmand province in
Afghanistan, "We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years and
without firing one shot." Wouldn’t we just, Lord Reid. The deployment was
lethally mismanaged and…we all know the story since then.
2)
The primary duty of any
democratic government is to protect the people who elected them. You might be
able to finesse an argument that explains how an air strike against Syria would
protect us all – can’t see it, myself. It’s surely likely to further inflame
many in the Arab world.
3)
Choosing sides in this civil
war means choosing between a revolting regime that seems to be prepared to
poison some of its own civilians, and disunited and chaotic rebel forces a
significant proportion of which consists of people dedicated to attacking
Western nations, and prepared to throw acid at women seeking an education.
4)
The videos are harrowing, and
poison gas is an obscenity. So is white phosphorous; I don’t recollect demands
for air strikes against Israel during its action in Gaza 2008-2009. So is
bombing nightclubs full of teenagers, or rocket attacks on farms; no calls for
attacks on Hezbollah or Hamas. What arrogance is it in us that we think we
should be the world’s police force? Why should we think we would make things
better? Have we, so far, in the Middle East? The most optimistic answer would
be “yes..and no.”
5)
In any case, how would air
strikes help the suffering people of Syria?
6)
If UK forces carry out air
strikes, what happens next? We can’t know. Have we even thought about it?
7)
There is no such thing as a
“surgical” air strike. If we attack, people will die who have nothing to do
with the Syrian armed forces, or the deployment of nerve gas.
8)
Let us discount the arguments
of Russia and China. They are as self-serving as most nations’ foreign
policies. But even should they, and the UN, “legalise” military action, please
don’t support it.
OK, it's nothing directly to do with mortality - though it sure could be do with death.
Normal service will be resumed etc.
Well, it is about death, in its way. There's this convention that gas is bad and bombs are... kindly? There are acceptable and unacceptable ways of killing people. Hard to know where to draw your red line once you've started. The semantics are not unintriguing and possibly not unabsurd.
ReplyDeleteAll my friend said, after the Commons vote, was "phew!"
ReplyDeleteYes, the semantics are sometimes absurd and often dangerous. Apparently a Syrian refugee said it might be better to be gassed than die under torture from Assad's thugs. He knew whereof he spoke.
Maybe a red line merely gets in the way of the best course action?
But what do I know. I'm just relieved not to be Messrs Obama and Cameron just now.
It's phew from me, too. An incredibly, and unexpected, good day for common sense.
ReplyDelete(What is all this special relationship nonsense about, for heavens' sake?!)