Stop the War?

[Blah Blah]

Today I read Stop the War Coalition's response to Cameron's speech on Syria this week. I think it makes some very valid points worthy of discussion.

*Stop the War Coalition's response to David Cameron's case for bombing:

*Stop the War believes that David Cameron's incoherent proposals for action

in Syria will do nothing to weaken Isis but will instead inflame the civil

war, deepen the misery of the Syrian people and increase the terrorist risk.

We are urging MP's to consider carefully before voting to take Britain into

our fourth war in fourteen years.

*1) Strategy.* David Cameron failed completely to outline a coherent

strategy to defeat Isis. He was unable to explain why British bombing will

be any more effective than that which has been conducted by the much larger

US forces with their allies over the last 13 months. The US admit that in

that period Isis has been recruiting steadily and that it has gained

territory in Syria. Cameron also failed to explain where ground forces might

come from. Kurds will not fight outside their own territories. As Julian

Lewis MP suggested, the estimate of 70,000 'moderate' Free Syrian Army

troops appears to have been snatched out of the air. Al Jazeera estimates

a figure of half that and reports that FSA forces are fragmented and

demoralised. In their view the FSA 'has seen its power wane dramatically

this year amid widespread desertions.'

*2) Legality. *Cameron appears to accept that the fact that last week's UN

resolution didn't have Chapter 7 status means it cannot be used to

legitimise foreign attacks on Syria. He falls back on the self-defence

argument. This is inapplicable. The right of self-defence applies to a

foreign state invasion, not reported attempts at attacks by handfuls of

terrorists.

*3) Civilian casualties. *As before every new war David Cameron tells us

that modern weapons have 'extraordinary precision' and will cause 'minimum

collateral damage'. As ever these claims are belied by facts. The available

research confirms hundreds of civilians

have already been killed by

coalition bombs. There are numerous individual reports of deaths caused by

bombing, including one recent estimate of twenty killed by coalition raids

on a Raqqa suburb. Despite the propaganda, drone attacks lead to high levels

of civilian deaths. Recently a leading US general, Mike Flynn, pointed out

that 'drone strikes have created more terrorists than they have killed.'

Raqqa , which Cameron wants to be at the centre of British attacks, is a

city already half devastated, with a population of 200,000 people.

*4) Transition and negotiations. * There is a glaring contradiction between

Cameron's claim to be prioritising a 'ceasefire' on the one hand and

advocating military intervention on the other. Military action will

complicate and hinder not hasten existing negotiations. The chaos of civil

war is creating the conditions in which Isis can thrive. A political

solution is necessary for people of the region to be able to tackle Isis.

Adding fuel to the flames of that war makes such a solution more distant.

*5) Dealing with terrorism.* David Cameron failed to answer questions about

whether bombing Syria will make terrorist attacks in Britain more likely.

The record of our interventions so far has not been good. The fourteen years

that encompassed the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the

bombing of Libya have seen the spread of jihadi terrorism from small pockets

of Central Asia through a massive arc stretching from Lahore to Lagos. Now

attacks are spreading to Europe. In the opinion of Eliza Mannigham-Buller,

Director General of MI5 during the period of the invasion, Britain's

involvement in Iraq, 'increased the terrorist threat by convincing more

people ... that Islam was under attack'. If Britain embarks on a war against

a fourth Muslim country, threat levels will rise.

*

**6) A safer world.* The Prime Minister claims that differences between the

various forces intervening in Syria are closing, making co-operation easier.

This is a fantastic claim impossible to reconcile with the recent shooting

down by Turkey of a Russian plane and the subsequent attack on a Russian

helicopter by Syrian rebels. David Cameron is asking MP's to vote to plunge

Britain into a maelstrom of competing powers centred on Syria without any

apparent co-ordination or plan. Russia, in particular, is apparently

attacking the very forces with which Cameron wants us to co-operate.

*7) The alternatives.* Bombing is not the only available foreign policy.

Among the many positive measures that could be taken are isolating Isis and

other jihadi groups by ending arms sales to the most reactionary and

authoritarian regimes in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These

are countries that sponsor terrorist networks in Syria. We should also

pressure Turkey to stop allowing its borders to be used for the supply of

arms and fighters into Syria. Crucially Britain and the US should pursue

rather than impede peace negotiations.

[Earl Aelfheah]

All good points. even if we could defeat IS by bombing the civilian areas in which they are highly dispersed, where's Cameron's plan for what happens next? I cannot see it making us safer frankly, it'll just create more resentment, uncertainty and chaos.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Good article by David Davis on this: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/should-parliament-endorse-uk-air-strikes-in-syria

[Blah Blah]

I think he's spot on rahrah.

Is Corbyn right to not use the whip? Cameron has no such qualms.

[????]

Corybn can't afford to completely lose the PLP....yet, don't worry John's putting their names in his little red book though :)

[Earl Aelfheah]

Agree with quids that Corbyn has little choice, that said, I also think it's right that it should be a free vote. If ever there was an issue of conscience, sending bombs to kill people is surely it.

[Blah Blah]

:D ????. I think you may be right. I'm inclined to agree rahrah. Have never liked the whip thing. Cameron is whipping his party although I think there will be rebels for him too.

[Otta]

I think a free vote was the right choice. But I also think it's good that Corbyn has asked for a full 2 day debate on the matter, and I will be interested to see how he performs. Could be a key moment.

[Otta]

Ah, but Cameron has refused and it will be a one day debate. Result almost feels inevitable now the free vote has been given.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34973637

[uncleglen]

Does not look like bombs will be very effective since the terrorists, like the Palestinian terrorists, have built networks of tunnels under the ground. The pictures on the BBC make you think that they have been a long time in the making. Germany has said it will commit 1200 troops.....

[ratty]

I don't understand the blood lust. I like what Corbyn said today. There will be no hiding place for those voting for it when the inevitable massacre of civilians happens.

[Blah Blah]

And therein I think is the real thinking behind Corbyn's decision to give a free vote. He has a strong conviction of where it's going to lead and is pretty much saying 'be it on your own head' if you vote for it. The other thing as well is the short memories of the Blairites, because it was the failed outcomes of the Iraq invasion that did for Tony Blair.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I read this morning that Cameron has resorted to calling Corbyn a 'terrorist sympathiser'. I don't think it's going too far to suggest that this demeans the office of prime minister. It's a serious issue and regardless of ones views on Syria, or political allegiance, I can't believe anyone can genuinely defend this kind of flippant, bullying rhetoric.

[WorkingMummy]

I agree rahrahrah. Opposing the air strikes, on the ground that it will only make a very bad situation worse, and be as ineffective an answer to terrorism as say, hmm the war in Afghanastan... Or to say that air strikes as a response to the Paris attacks would be disproportionate (as well as useless), and to query why European lives should be valued so highly above Syrian lives... These are not arguments that express sympathy with terrorists. They do the opposite.

Cameron says this kind of stuff, and it's like a prep school debate team is playing with the ISIL question.

[edhistory]

Does anyone know what Helen Hayes MP has to say?

[nashoi]

http://www.helenhayes.org.uk/my_views_on_syria

[miga]

That's an interesting take on things from Helen Hayes: "get the Russians to stop supporting Assad". There was an article a couple of months back from Marti Ahtisaari (AFAIK, a respected diplomat and not known for being full of it or indeed for being a Russian stooge, Nobel laureate etc.), who said that Putin had through negotiators offered the removal of Assad "in an elegant way" as a bargaining chip three years ago, if the other side would stop backing the opposition. I guess IS was an unintended consequence and "we" thought Assad would have been defeated by now.

Classic Cold War BS, with a huge humanitarian cost.

[DaveR]

"I read this morning that Cameron has resorted to calling Corbyn a 'terrorist sympathiser'"

Corbyn has a long history of being a terrorist sympathiser - Irish Republicans, Palestinians etc. He calls them 'freedom fighters' though.

[DulwichFox]

Comments like 'We are all in this together' and ' You are either with us or against us'

would seem to imply that anyone against bombing Syria is themselves a 'terrorist sympathiser'

This is simply not the case..

DulwichFox

[KidKruger]

Yeah when people fight back after their territory is occupied and their people abused they are called terrorists - usually by the countries / leaders responsible.

[Earl Aelfheah]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Corbyn has a long history of being a terrorist

> sympathiser - Irish Republicans, Palestinians etc.

> He calls them 'freedom fighters' though.

He actually went further than this, if reports are true. He said "You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers." Implying that anyone voting against the airstrikes is somehow sympathetic to IS and their insane death cult.

I don't think for one second that Jeremy Corbyn, or any other member of parliament who are voting against bombing in Syria are sympathetic to IS. To say such a silly thing in relation to such a grave matter, on the eve of a serious parliamentary debate, is frankly pathetic. Cameron should be thoroughly ashamed.

[Blah Blah]

Yes that's how I took Cameron's comment too, that anyone against bombing Syria is a terrorist sympathiser. I think it's a completely unacceptable statement from a Prime Minister.

[????]

I think it was an incredibly stupid and partisan thing to say by Cameron. He's meant to be PM for F Sake

[Loz]

Yep - I cringed when I read Cameron's comments. I suspect he just lost a few Labour MPs sitting on the fence on the subject.

[Blah Blah]

Agreed, and he seems unwilling to apologise.