The argument goes that by striking at SYRIA now, it will stop the use of chemical weapons in the future. But what target should be ‘hit’?
The only sure way of removing the threat of CW’s is by strategic strikes upon the weapon stores themselves, presumably, now relocated far and wide. The problem with this, is, we simply can’t be sure innocent civilians won’t be caught-up in such military intervention, either directly or through environmental factors such as the weather, we don’t control the weather!
In whose interests is it to have plumes of contaminated smoke rising above Syria’s towns and cities and along the border areas near Jordan and Israel?
Israel also has chemical weapons and have used them against Palestinians in recent years, are we going to bomb Israel as well? Of course not! So we can’t argue that these current deliberations have morality at its heart.
Then there’s the issue of aligning too closely with the Syrian opposition
coalition. Some groups within the Syrian opposition coalition have been in armed combat with British forces for over a decade and have their own reason for calling for military intervention by the West, one of which is the spread religious fundamentalism.
We have too often joined with the US and others to enforce a particular interpretation of international law, much, it has to be said, to the detriment of the reputation and ability of the UN, particularly in terms of conflict resolution.
Have any of our military interventions throughout the region resulted in a more peaceful region? Or ended the threat of terrorist attack here, in the UK, or elsewhere?
I’ll let you be the judge!