UK House of Commons debate on Syria? The Americans and French ready to invade.

[GAROODI]

Parliament is so routinely disparaged nowadays that it is easy to underestimate what an effective body it can be. To say this is neither to ignore parliament's genuine shortcomings nor to pretend that modern politicians are more commanding public figures than they are. But it is to say that when MPs debate Syria on Thursday, the House of Commons has more power than many seem to realise. It should use that power to uphold process, law and legitimacy.

 

Parliament's first and most effective power is that it can, if it chooses, stop David Cameron's needlessly precipitate Syria policy dead in its tracks. A defeat for the government, or perhaps even a narrow-squeak victory, would oblige the prime minister to send his regrets to the White House and keep the UK's cruise missiles in their launchers for the time being.

 

If that were to happen, the UK parliament's reach might be greater still. After two years in which, tragically, the world has been unable to prevent Syria's catastrophe deepening ever further, the Cameron government is suddenly in a hurry to act. Partly this is because of the outrageous use of chemical weapons in Syria. But it is also because the US administration, having boxed itself in about responding to such horrors, now summons Britain to give support. But would the Obama administration, elected to end the war in Iraq and anxious to end the one in Afghanistan, really want to engage in Syria, even to the extent of an arm's-length bombing campaign, without either UN support or major international allies? The answer is not cut and dried. But it is arguable that a vote in the UK parliament could stay Washington's hand from a politically controversial, premature strike that would raise massive issues of legitimacy.

 

The assumption at Westminster is that parliament will not deny Cameron his mandate. Yet it undoubtedly could, and it arguably should. The use of chemical weapons is indubitably a war crime – the first global treaty against them dates from as long ago as 1925 – that the international community cannot ignore. But that doesn't mean Damascus must be bombed this weekend, before the weapons inspectors have finished their work and before the UN has debated its response. If the purpose of this strike is both to punish the Syrian regime and to send a powerful message to other potential users of chemical weapons, then the message surely needs to have as much support and legitimacy as possible. That means letting the UN process take its course.

 

The coalition at Westminster has a majority of 77. If Labour goes ahead with its plan to argue for more time and oppose the government motion, and if three dozen Tory and Liberal Democrat backbenchers join forces, then, with the support of at least some of the minor parties, a government defeat or a pyrrhic win is far from impossible. Such a thing has happened before in this parliament, on Europe and on Lords reform, and some of the Tories' most regular rebels are again on the sceptical wing over Syria. So why not now?

 

Cameron would not have recalled parliament if he was not confident he could carry the Commons on bombing Syria. So runs the official counter-argument. And undoubtedly No 10 has many cards in its hand. Not the least of these, in our naughty world, is that there may be a government reshuffle next week. Individual acts of disloyalty would come at a high personal price for ambitious backbenchers. And Tory MPs, in particular, are never natural rebels on military matters, so waverers will instinctively want to stand by the flag.

 

Never forget, though, that this is a hung parliament. That's why Cameron was still being forced to negotiate on Wednesday night in order to put his putative majority together. Even on Tuesday Cameron made concessions to MPs who fear an attack on Syria could trigger the glumly familiar unintended consequences and mission creep just as the UK is scuttling from Afghanistan. By emphasising that the Syria mission would be missile-only, would last no more than three days, and was purely a punitive act for Bashar al-Assad's probable use of chemical weapons, Cameron painted himself into a smaller corner than he would surely have wanted at the start of the week.

 

Wednesday night's planned British move in the UN security council was another concession to an approach based on greater legitimacy. It was probably doomed because of Russia's cold war mentality veto. A similar fate probably awaits the inspection report. But a veto should not mean that no action can be taken once the process has been given a proper chance. If Vladimir Putin gets to decide what is or is not legal, then international law is an ***. But trying everything to make the system work is the right thing to do. Parliament needs to be shown that London will do everything possible for a peaceful solution. In that context the delays – more than 24 hours – in publishing the government's motion for Thursday's debate are further proof that Cameron has not got this in the bag.

 

Much of this constant redrafting is the indirect exertion of parliamentary power too. The government is struggling to craft a motion that satisfies Liberal Democrat MPs – who in many cases owe their seats to anti-Iraq-war defections from Labour in 2005 – as well as little England Tory backbenchers who, nudged by Ukip's anti-intervention stance yesterday, fear that Nigel Farage speaks for their voters better than Cameron does. But a lot of this is Labour's doing, since as long as Ed Miliband's party refuses to sign up for the government motion, government backbench doubters have that much more power to extract concessions.

 

Perhaps by the time you read this Labour will have fallen into line behind the government, as many assume it will do in the end. Yet Labour, enjoying a happy convergence between principle and self-interest, was still playing hardball on Wednesday evening, planning its own amendment and pressing to uphold due process before any strike. In past foreign crises including the Falklands and Libya, Labour has often tried to show patriotic mettle by giving official support to controversial military campaigns.

 

No two military campaigns are the same, but legitimacy always matters. And to its great credit, Labour seems to have learned from Iraq. Significantly, there's little tabloid jingoism over Syria. Quite the opposite, if anything. A Labour leader who is often told to show a bit of boldness has an opportunity to do it on Thursday. He can make parliament matter – and, even more important, he can speak for Britain.

[GAROODI]

Spy planes, sub marines, air craft carriers are all amassing tonight in the med.

[GAROODI]

Hit him hard

Present the proof, deliver an ultimatum and punish Bashar Assad for his use of chemical weapons

Aug 31st 2013

 

THE grim spectacle of suffering in Syria—100,000 of whose people have died in its civil war—will haunt the world for a long time. Intervention has never looked easy, yet over the past two and a half years outsiders have missed many opportunities to affect the outcome for the better. Now America and its allies have been stirred into action by President Bashar Assad’s apparent use of chemical weapons to murder around 1,000 civilians—the one thing that even Barack Obama has said he would never tolerate.

The American president and his allies have three choices: do nothing (or at least do as little as Mr Obama has done to date); launch a sustained assault with the clear aim of removing Mr Assad and his regime; or hit the Syrian dictator more briefly but grievously, as punishment for his use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Each carries the risk of making things worse, but the last is the best option.

Advertisement

 

No option is perfect

From the Pentagon to Britain’s parliament, plenty of realpolitikers argue that doing nothing is the only prudent course. Look at Iraq, they say: whenever America clumsily breaks a country, it ends up “owning” the problem. A strike would inevitably inflict suffering: cruise missiles are remarkably accurate, but can all too easily kill civilians. Mr Assad may retaliate, perhaps assisted by his principal allies, Iran, Russia and Hizbullah, the Lebanese Shias’ party-cum-militia, which is practised in the dark arts of international terror and which threatens Israel with 50,000 rockets and missiles. What happens if Britain’s base in Cyprus is struck by Russian-made Scud missiles? Or if intervention leads to some of the chemical weapons ending up with militants close to al-Qaeda? And why further destabilise Syria’s neighbours—Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq?

Because doing nothing carries risks that are even bigger (see article). If the West tolerates such a blatant war crime, Mr Assad will feel even freer to use chemical weapons. He had after all stepped across Mr Obama’s “red line” several times by using these weapons on a smaller scale—and found that Mr Obama and his allies blinked. An American threat, especially over WMD, must count for something: it is hard to see how Mr Obama can eat his words without the superpower losing credibility with the likes of Iran and North Korea.

And America’s cautiousness has cost lives. A year ago, this newspaper argued for military intervention: not for Western boots on the ground, but for the vigorous arming of the rebels, the creation of humanitarian corridors, the imposition of no-fly zones and, if Mr Assad ignored them, an aerial attack on his air-defence system and heavy weaponry. At the time Mr Assad’s regime was reeling, most of the rebels were relatively moderate, the death toll was less than half the current total and the conflict had yet to spill into other countries. Some of Mr Obama’s advisers also urged him to arm the rebels; distracted by his election, he rebuffed them—and now faces, as he was repeatedly warned, a much harder choice.

So why not do now what Mr Obama should have done then, and use the pretext of the chemical strike to pursue the second option of regime change? Because, sadly, the facts have changed. Mr Assad’s regime has become more solid, while the rebels, shorn of Western support and dependent mainly on the Saudis and Qataris, have become more Islamist, with the most extreme jihadis doing much of the fighting. An uprising against a brutal tyrant has kindled a sectarian civil war. The Sunnis who make up around three-quarters of the population generally favour the rebels, whereas many of those who adhere to minority religions, including Christians, have reluctantly sided with Mr Assad. The opportunity to push this war to a speedy conclusion has gone—and it is disingenuous to wrap that cause up with the chemical weapons.

So Mr Obama should focus on the third option: a more limited punishment of such severity that Mr Assad is deterred from ever using WMD again. Hitting the chemical stockpiles themselves runs the risk both of poisoning more civilians and of the chemicals falling into the wrong hands. Far better for a week of missiles to rain down on the dictator’s “command-and-control” centres, including his palaces. By doing this, Mr Obama would certainly help the rebels, though probably not enough to overturn the regime. With luck, well-calibrated strikes might scare Mr Assad towards the negotiating table.

Do it well and follow through

But counting on luck would be a mistake, especially in this fortune-starved country. There is no tactical advantage in rushing in: Mr Assad and his friends will have been preparing for contingencies, including ways to hide his offending chemical weapons, for many months. Mr Obama must briskly go through all sorts of hoops before ordering an attack.

The first task is to lay out as precisely as anybody can the evidence, much of it inevitably circumstantial, that Mr Assad’s forces were indeed responsible for the mass atrocity. America’s secretary of state, John Kerry, was right that Syria’s refusal to let the UN’s team of inspectors visit the poison-gas sites for five days after the attack was tantamount to an admission of guilt. But, given the fiasco of Iraq’s unfound weapons, it is not surprising that sceptics still abound. Mr Obama must also assemble the widest coalition of the willing, seeing that China and Russia, which is increasingly hostile to Western policies (see next leader), are sure to block a resolution in the UN Security Council to use force under Chapter 7. NATO—including, importantly, Germany and Turkey—already seems onside. The Arab League is likely to be squared, too.

And before the missiles are fired, Mr Obama must give Mr Assad one last chance: a clear ultimatum to hand over his chemical weapons entirely within a very short period. The time for inspections is over. If Mr Assad gives in, then both he and his opponents will be deprived of such poisons—a victory for Mr Obama. If Mr Assad refuses, he should be shown as little mercy as he has shown to the people he claims to govern. If an American missile then hits Mr Assad himself, so be it. He and his henchmen have only themselves to blame.

[Reeyo]

Caution- Too many players involved, consequences are dire.

 

Prayer to Allah to protect the innocent.