There are times when bombs have to be dropped, heads must be broken and bodies destroyed. Now, however, is not one of those times.
I am not a pacifist and neither (I hope) am I a coward. I am, however, convinced that military action against IS in Syria /Iraq will be disastrous - for the UK, for the people living the Middle East and potentially for the world as a whole.
The Syrian conflict is complex to a mind boggling degree. A casual glance at the number of participating armed groups should be all it takes for anyone to realise that.
What is not so difficult to grasp is the fact that the flames of this conflict are being fanned by outside forces, all of whom have their own strategic objective. Russia wants an ally in the region - so it supports Assad. Iran wants to retain its influence - it also supports Assad.
An increasingly emboldened Turkey, led by the increasingly hardline Erdogan, wants to be the dominant player in the region. It wants a weak, Assad-free, Syria and it desperately wants to crush the Kurds. It is also not too fussy about buying oil from IS when it suits. This peculiar rogue state is quite happy to use/abuse its membership of NATO to challenge Russian influence in the region.
The US of course still wants to hold on to power in the region. Being utterly humiliated and diplomatically outmaneuvered by the Russians during the chemical weapons “red line” debacle was a wake up call; it had to act somehow if it was to maintain any sense of control. Lacking any genuine credibility, it is trying desperately to manage events on the ground. Building an alliance with an assortment of despots, tyrants and fools helps it do just that. Let's not also forget that some of the “allies” that the U.S. is working with are actively involved in the export of the very same vile Wahhabi fundamentalism that IS adhere to.
With the active consent and encouragement of the mass media, the buffoon that is Francois Hollande has succeeded in creating a narrative that goes a little like this: “We were attacked by crazed fanatics. They declared war on us and we are now fighting back”. There’s just one problem with this superficially plausible story - it’s not true. France was bombing IS in Syria a full seven weeks before the horrendous attacks in Paris. A case of muddled thinking if ever there was one.
And as for the UK, the argument used by Cameron seems to be little more than one based on “self defence”. Destroy IS in Syria and Iraq and the UK’s cities will be safer. If it were that simple, then Cameron might have my support. But of course it’s not that simple. Let’s look briefly at what happened in Paris.
The Paris attackers were, as far as anyone knows, EU citizens. They didn’t come from Syria. Yes, some of them travelled there after they were “radicalised”, but there was obviously something that attracted them to Syria - something about their experience in Europe. It would be naive for anyone to pretend to understand the full reasons for their radicalisation and I won’t dare offer any here. My point, however, is that they were radicalised before they travelled to Syria. In a globalised and increasingly borderless world, bombing Syria, Iraq, Nigeria - or even Molenbeek in Belgium - will not stop radicalisation, and neither will it prevent its transition from the realm of stupid ideology in the minds of stupid people to the realm of suicide vests and Kalashnikovs. To think otherwise is to confuse effect with cause.
And so we are left with a situation as absurd as it is dangerous. Multiple players, dishonest and/or confused, all prepared to sacrifice the lives of others to further their own goals. The very real risk of serious conflict between the major external players, and the catastrophic implications of this, is something that none of us should ignore.
As a parliamentary vote edges closer in the UK, the die is almost cast. The molotov cocktail of muddled thinking, groupthink, moral cowardice and sheer opportunism has already been lit. When this potent brew ignites, the flames may engulf the world.
#DontBombSyria
I am not a pacifist and neither (I hope) am I a coward. I am, however, convinced that military action against IS in Syria /Iraq will be disastrous - for the UK, for the people living the Middle East and potentially for the world as a whole.
The Syrian conflict is complex to a mind boggling degree. A casual glance at the number of participating armed groups should be all it takes for anyone to realise that.
What is not so difficult to grasp is the fact that the flames of this conflict are being fanned by outside forces, all of whom have their own strategic objective. Russia wants an ally in the region - so it supports Assad. Iran wants to retain its influence - it also supports Assad.
An increasingly emboldened Turkey, led by the increasingly hardline Erdogan, wants to be the dominant player in the region. It wants a weak, Assad-free, Syria and it desperately wants to crush the Kurds. It is also not too fussy about buying oil from IS when it suits. This peculiar rogue state is quite happy to use/abuse its membership of NATO to challenge Russian influence in the region.
The US of course still wants to hold on to power in the region. Being utterly humiliated and diplomatically outmaneuvered by the Russians during the chemical weapons “red line” debacle was a wake up call; it had to act somehow if it was to maintain any sense of control. Lacking any genuine credibility, it is trying desperately to manage events on the ground. Building an alliance with an assortment of despots, tyrants and fools helps it do just that. Let's not also forget that some of the “allies” that the U.S. is working with are actively involved in the export of the very same vile Wahhabi fundamentalism that IS adhere to.
With the active consent and encouragement of the mass media, the buffoon that is Francois Hollande has succeeded in creating a narrative that goes a little like this: “We were attacked by crazed fanatics. They declared war on us and we are now fighting back”. There’s just one problem with this superficially plausible story - it’s not true. France was bombing IS in Syria a full seven weeks before the horrendous attacks in Paris. A case of muddled thinking if ever there was one.
And as for the UK, the argument used by Cameron seems to be little more than one based on “self defence”. Destroy IS in Syria and Iraq and the UK’s cities will be safer. If it were that simple, then Cameron might have my support. But of course it’s not that simple. Let’s look briefly at what happened in Paris.
The Paris attackers were, as far as anyone knows, EU citizens. They didn’t come from Syria. Yes, some of them travelled there after they were “radicalised”, but there was obviously something that attracted them to Syria - something about their experience in Europe. It would be naive for anyone to pretend to understand the full reasons for their radicalisation and I won’t dare offer any here. My point, however, is that they were radicalised before they travelled to Syria. In a globalised and increasingly borderless world, bombing Syria, Iraq, Nigeria - or even Molenbeek in Belgium - will not stop radicalisation, and neither will it prevent its transition from the realm of stupid ideology in the minds of stupid people to the realm of suicide vests and Kalashnikovs. To think otherwise is to confuse effect with cause.
And so we are left with a situation as absurd as it is dangerous. Multiple players, dishonest and/or confused, all prepared to sacrifice the lives of others to further their own goals. The very real risk of serious conflict between the major external players, and the catastrophic implications of this, is something that none of us should ignore.
As a parliamentary vote edges closer in the UK, the die is almost cast. The molotov cocktail of muddled thinking, groupthink, moral cowardice and sheer opportunism has already been lit. When this potent brew ignites, the flames may engulf the world.
#DontBombSyria