Bombing Syria: Careful thought was required rather than stirring speeches
Robert E Lee was possibly the only man in history to have been offered an important command position by both sides in a major conflict. The major conflict was the American Civil war and he unhesitatingly chose, as it turned out, the losing side. Far from being the mercenary that such a choice would seem to imply, it’s likely that many in the American civil war, in fact in any civil war, would have had genuinely divided loyalties. However, the possible uniqueness of Robert E Lee as an individual being able to choose his side for an important role in a major conflict is in contrast to the choices made by governments. History has many examples of expedient alliances formed for complex political, diplomatic or economic reasons prior to, and even during major conflicts.
In an echo of Robert E Lee’s experience, the UK Prime Minister David W D Cameron, in retrospect, also had the choice of supporting either side during the Syria conflict. However, unlike Robert E Lee, David W D Cameron – within the space of less than two years – advocated taking military action against both sides of the conflict. Firstly, in 2013, on behalf of the loose alliance that forms the rebels against the dictator Assad, and secondly in 2015 on behalf of the dictator Assad against the loose alliance that forms the rebels. A government motion in support of military action against Assad was put to parliament in 2013. The reason given was that the US and UK suspected the use of chemical weapons by Assad during an attack on the outskirts of Damascus, where tragically children had been killed. This was denied by Assad who blamed the rebels. Addressing the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly, British Prime Minister David Cameron made an impassioned plea;
“The blood of these young children is a terrible stain on this United Nations. And in particular, it is a stain on those who have failed to stand up to these atrocities and in some cases aided and abetted Assad’s regime of terror”.
If nothing else the speech had followed Tony C L Blair’s example and reinforced the rather arbitrary notion of a sort of immoral hierarchy of weapons. The use of chemical weapons, very high on this list, could then almost be used to legitimise a response with weapons lower on the list, bombs for example. The implication being that deaths caused by chemical weapons – particularly of children – is a more evil act than deaths being caused by the inevitable collateral damage from bombing, which is just as indiscriminate with its choice of victim. In any case, the bombing would have aided the rebels which included ISIS. This seemed a re-run of Tony C L Blair advocating regime change against an Arab dictator because of his use of chemical weapons and suspected ”weapons of mass destruction”. At least Tony Blair was consistent in supporting just one side, and in parallel with the experience of Robert E Lee, it turned out to be the wrong side. The Iraq conflict to topple Saddam Hussein contributed massively to the growth of ISIS and the current pan-European refugee crisis. Iraq was doubtless too fresh in the mind of Parliament who rejected the motion for military action against Assad in 2013.
By comparison, the recent 2015 vote to join in the somewhat dysfunctional alliance against the assortment of rebel groups in Syria would have seemed much easier to reject. There are a number of reasons why a vote to bomb Syria should have at least been delayed to sort out problems within the alliance, particularly the period immediately post-conflict if ISIS were defeated. The debate and vote was hastened if not precipitated by the terrorist outrage in Paris. But without a clear correlation between bombing Syria and a reduction of the ISIS terrorist threat, any money spent on bombing in Syria could have been more effectively spent on increasing homeland or European security, including cross-border cooperation. After all, it’s likely that ISIS terrorist cells are already established in Europe.
There are also some major differences in the aims of the anti-Syrian rebel alliance which should have been addressed by attempting to forge understandings between various members of the alliance. Russia for example, is a supporter of Assad. Turkey’s unfathomable shooting down of a Russian bomber, with both countries supposedly part of the anti-Syrian rebel alliance, brings not just Turkey but NATO, including the UK and US, into conflict with Russia. Such an act would doubtless have hardened the latter’s resolve to keep Assad in power, if indeed it needed hardening. Turkey’s suspected involvement with the selling of ISIS-controlled crude oil and their traditional antipathy towards the Kurds has resulted in further difficulties within the alliance, as has Saudi’s funding of ISIS (not officially but by influential components within the country).
Should ISIS be defeated, the major problem would centre on Assad’s position. David W D Cameron’s ambition to remove Assad, despite the lessons of the dire and far-reaching consequences of removing Middle Eastern dictators like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, would be in direct opposition to Russia. It seems the feat of circumspect diplomacy required to resolve such a problem would be beyond the capability of a Prime Minister whose strategy for Syria over the last two years has oscillated between bombing each side of the conflict. There’s much to be said for Robert E Lee’s decisiveness in making a difficult choice concerning war.
