British Parliament votes against military action in Syria

[Túrin Turambar]

Seeing as the focus of the Arab Spring seems to have shifted a bit I thought we could use a new thread.

For those who do not know, the governments of the US and UK have been considering military action against the Syrian regime following evidence that it has used chemical weapons against civilians (evidence which, I should add, is disputed). These plans have been hit with a setback now that the British House of Commons has voted against direct military intervention. My observations:

1. I am inclined to agree with the House of Commons rather than Number 10. The Assad regime is a dictatorship which holds power through force. It has attacked civilians without discrimination before, and is probably still doing so. That said, it looks increasingly likely that the rebels are dominated by Jihadists. The Free Syrian Army appears to have some affiliation with Al-Qaeda, and is drawing mujahedeen from around the world. I have heard Islamic fundamentalist preachers, like Musa Cerantino here in Melbourne, suggest that victory for the mujahedeen in Syria is an essential step towards the destruction of Israel. The Syrians can do what they like, but it is hardly in the interests of the west if supporting these people leads to the establishment of fundamentalist and anti-western regimes in the region. The anti-action crowd is pretty diverse, including the usual anti-war types and non-interventionists but also significant numbers of conservatives who, like me, have grave doubts about the rebels. Our own Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has taken this line (“two equally unsavoury sides”). In short, I don’t think that the US or UK should bomb Al-Qaeda’s enemies, whomever they are.

2. America had assumed that Britain would follow its lead, and so this has been a bit of a shock to the Obama Administration. We have been accustomed for long time now with the idea that the U.S. is a Hyper-power that does not need to consider any decisions taken outside Washington. It is interesting, then, that the Administration’s plans do seem to have been actually derailed by the vote in Westminster. Obama reserves the right to act unilaterally, but it seems that some Congressmen who were wavering over the issue may have been swayed into opposing action because of Britain’s position. Republicans, in particular, may not support the Administration in these circumstances.

3. Interesting also that Parliament still has so much clout in foreign policy in the U.K. This will give pause to those who argue that Britain has moved since the Thatcher and Blair years into an almost presidential system of government where the real power is held by the Prime Minister.

4. If it turned out that no chemical weapons were used, I'm afraid we would get another Iraqi WMD situation. Personally, I think that we can consider these questions regardless of whether the Syrian Army has gassed Syrian civilians - we already have a fair idea who we are dealing with.

5. The Middle East is probably going to have big problems for a long time, and as a result, so will the West.

[Pearly Di]

From The Daily Telegraph: "It is the first time that a British Government has been blocked from executing a military deployment and highlights the deep mistrust of official intelligence in the wake of the Iraq war."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... meron.html

Just so. This is, by the way, the first time in well over 100 years that a British government has not got its way over going to war.

I am so relieved.

- We have big problems at home, most of them caused by the crash of 2008 and the resulting callous and immoral policies of our coalition government;
- therefore the last damn thing we need is embroilment in a third, Middle Eastern military engagement in TEN YEARS.
- especially with all the cuts to our military.

And, also: amongst other things, military intervention in Syria by the West would likely result in the destruction of the ancient Christian community that has existed there since ... well, pretty much the time of Christ. Every Christian agency I know has said (and they've written to our Prime Minister about it), 'military action by the West in Syria will be absolutely disastrous for the Christian minority there.' The Christians are already being hounded out and killed by the Islamist rebels.

I am 1000% behind sending humanitarian aid to Syria. Military action, no. This is a poisoned cauldron. Assad is a weasel, a tyrant and, I have no doubt, a mass murderer. But the forces aligned against him give me no confidence they are any better. The West should stay the heck out.

[Túrin Turambar]

I don’t whether my views on this have evolved, or whether I simply take things on a more case-by-case basis. I felt that the military intervention in Libya worked. The costs to the U.S., U.K. and France were low, the opposition didn’t seem as jihad-inclined, a few airstrikes were enough to turn the tide and prevent a long civil war from breaking out, and we were rid of Muammar Gaddafi. Syria strikes me as being different. Perhaps I was wrong then. Or now.

[Jude]

It's supremely hypocritical of the United States to attack Syria on "humanitarian grounds", since until recently they outsourced their torture there.

[Pearly Di]

I don’t whether my views on this have evolved, or whether I simply take things on a more case-by-case basis. I felt that the military intervention in Libya worked. The costs to the U.S., U.K. and France were low, the opposition didn’t seem as jihad-inclined, a few airstrikes were enough to turn the tide and prevent a long civil war from breaking out, and we were rid of Muammar Gaddafi. Syria strikes me as being different. Perhaps I was wrong then. Or now.

Lord_M, I supported the action in Libya, because the Libyan rebels begged us to intervene. There they were, holed up in Benghazi, sitting ducks for Gaddafi's slaughter. I think Britain and France did the right thing. It's one of the rare (very rare) times when I have supported David Cameron in anything.

One Middle Eastern crisis is not the identikit of another. Not that we seem to care about Libya now, of course. But still. I don't think that was quite the same situation as now.

The present crisis is dreadful and could engulf the entire region.

[Lalaith]

I am with you all and hoping and praying that America doesn't decide to intervene militarily.

It's supremely hypocritical of the United States to attack Syria on "humanitarian grounds", since until recently they outsourced their torture there.

Please explain.

[yovargas]

(Can I request the thread title be changed to something broader like "Military action in Syria"?)

[Jude]

I am with you all and hoping and praying that America doesn't decide to intervene militarily.

It's supremely hypocritical of the United States to attack Syria on "humanitarian grounds", since until recently they outsourced their torture there.

Please explain.

Well, for example, Maher Arar (a dual Canadian/Syrian citizen living in Canada) was intercepted in New York on his way back from a routine business trip. Because his name was on some "list", he was shipped off to Syria where he was tortured for 10 months. His family was never informed, nor were the Canadian authorities.

His reason for being on the list? Some time in the past, he had signed some contract with someone else on the list.

[River]

It's interesting how the propaganda machine isn't kicking into high gear to get people behind bombing Syria. When the higher-ups decided to go into Iraq to impose democracy and get the WMDs that turned out not to be there, not supporting the effort was tantamount to treason. This time around, though, the public isn't interested and the media isn't working to make us interested. Perhaps a lesson was learned.

The US has itself sort of in a corner. The people in general (self included) don't favor a military engagement. So if we go in, there will be much squawking at home. On the other hand, after all that chest-thumping about redlines last year, if we don't respond to an apparent chemical attack, we look stupid. It doesn't help that the UK has bailed. The French government still seems interested in dumping explosives on Syria. Not sure how the French people feel but since the French are plenty happy to get their demonstrations on when their government steps out of line I'm sure we'll learn their thoughts sooner or later. Also, just to make matters more complicated, Syria is home to a Russian military installation, the Chinese are tight with Assad, and Syria also shares a border with Turkey, a key US ally. Syria has already sent some shells over that border for reasons that were never clear to me. But the whole thing is a tinderbox. I'd vastly prefer it if the US just noped right on out of the whole thing but I'm not sure who we can do it without looking like idiots. Hopefully, though, the State Department will keep the Defense Department's fingers off its triggers.

I find it interesting that, though Congress perennially bitches and moans about Presidents going to war without consulting them, they've made no effort to repeal the War Powers Act.

[Lalaith]

Thanks for the example, Jude.

Discretion is the better part of valor, I think. I hope diplomatic means and other ways of putting political pressure on Assad will help. (I realize the Middle East always has been insanely complex and unpredictable, so that is probably a fool's hope.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

(Can I request the thread title be changed to something broader like "Military action in Syria"?)

While I understand and even endorse this request, I think I will leave it at the discretion of Lord M as the threadstarter.

[Túrin Turambar]

(Can I request the thread title be changed to something broader like "Military action in Syria"?)

While I understand and even endorse this request, I think I will leave it at the discretion of Lord M as the threadstarter.

I went for the specific title because I also thought that there were issues of UK politics and US-UK relations worth considering in light of the Parliament's vote, and I figured we would just all take off from there. However, if people genuinely do want to discuss Syria alone then I will change the title.

[Frelga]

If you don't follow Yonatan Zunger's feed on Google+, you should.

He reshared this concise summary of the situation in the Middle East. There is an excellent discussion in the comments of the post of the related issues of sectarian and tribal violence and alliances.



Unfortunately, just because the country is ruled by a bloodthirsty tyrant, doesn't mean that his opponents would not be as tyrannical and bloodthirsty if they came to power.

The US has itself sort of in a corner. The people in general (self included) don't favor a military engagement. So if we go in, there will be much squawking at home. On the other hand, after all that chest-thumping about redlines last year, if we don't respond to an apparent chemical attack, we look stupid

We'll look even more stupid if we get ourselves into another conflict, where no positive outcome seems possible.

[River]

The Middle East is a no-win scenario.

As for the image you posted, S showed me that a few days ago. I would have linked it except I had no idea where he found it and I didn't have time to go looking. But now that it's at my disposal, I shall do what I've been wanting to do since I saw it: draw a diagram. I think that's the only way I can make sense of it.

ETA: Done. It's still a pile of WTF, but at least I can see it clearly.

[Túrin Turambar]

Is Obama really backing the Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi? I get the impression that the U.S. kind-of turned a blind eye to the Egyptian Army's overthrow of President Morsi. Certainly the Egyptian Army is now one of the most pro-U.S. forces in the Middle East, behind the Turkish one.

[Lalaith]

River, I tried to make a diagram, too. I couldn't think of a good way to make it all look nice and neat. It looks pretty chaotic.

[Frelga]

There are a number of diagrams of varying complexity in the comments to
the thread I linked to.

P.S.: IS a number? No, that sounds wrong.

[River]

Oh mine isn't nice and neat. Bunch of vectors with smileys or frownies going everywhere. But that's sort of the root of the problem, isn't it? You *can't* draw up a chart and make it pretty.

I was sorta surprised by that "Obama backs the Muslim Brotherhood" line too, LM. The US did look the other way when Morsi was taken down by coup and never really answered domestic demands about why we were continuing to give foreign aid to a nation whose military just deposed a democratically elected leader. Not only that, but when Morsi was initially elected the US government was giving off a definite "We don't like this but that's how elections work" vibe.

And thanks to Frelga I found this

[Frelga]

I think "has no clue" sounds about right.

[River]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too.