By the time this article is posted, the Parliamentary debate will be nearly over and Britain is likely to moving to join its
allies in bombing Da’ish in Syria (Da'ish, Da'esh, ISIL, ISIS, lets not quibble, they are murderous religious zealots. I call them Da'ish after taking advice from someone who claims to know) The Twitter storm on this topic does not
seem to have added much to the arguments on either side; most commentators are
dug in on one side or the other as are using increasingly inflamed language. My
reason for writing this blog is not to hope to change anyone else’s mind, though I would
hope that some might agree with my position, but to try to articulate my own
views by setting them down in writing.
Rod Liddle in the Sunday times is usually good for a laugh and
occasionally makes serious points. Last Sunday he gave some pretty good, if
presented tongue-in-cheek, reasons for not bombing Syria. Here are his
reasons:
- whenever we take military action in the Middle East we make things
worse.
- our allies, the Free Syrian Army – does not exist as a viable
military force
- our other allies out there are no better than ISIS
- ISIS
is not a threat to Britain, but radical Islam is
- if we shoot down any
Russian jets, this will escalate the war in directions we don’t want.
- it is
a knee-jerk action, and not properly thought through.
- lots of innocent
people will be killed.
He raises some pretty good points. But as a satirist,
unlike the government, he is not required to go on and provide any practical
proposals on what to do. Still food for thought.
Principles will get you nowhere
There are only two positions of principle:
1. Pacifism – do not fight
wars on the grounds that people (including innocent people) will be
killed.
2. Dogmatists (whether based on religion or politics) – both in
favour and against war to achieve some “ideal” end.
I say positions of principle, though of course in each case there will be
ample arguments that can be put in contradiction to individual issues, but the
point is that these people are not swayed by logic or by evidence and are,
generally, irrationally held views and not open to debate. Not that that stops
them putting their own point of view in the strongest possible terms. They can
be distinguished from the vast majority of opinions in social media that are
simply gut reactions, uninformed but nevertheless honest for that.
What is the ultimate aim?
The decision about what to do in Syria, or indeed in any other war, will most
likely not be made as a matter of principle, but a matter of calculation of how
best to achieve a desired end. The first key question is is “WHAT IS THE
DESIRED END”? In this case I believe the ultimate aim should be to eliminate
the threat that Da’ish pose to the United Kingdom and its allies. Removing the
threat to innocent civilians in Syria and Iraq, and indeed freeing them from the
tyranny of Da’ish, is of course also a great objective, but unfortunately this
can only be a happy subsidiary outcome; we cannot, neither should we, intervene
to address any conflict, war and inhumanity everywhere in the world, even if Tim
Farron was moved by meeting Syrian refugees to support the Government’s motion.
The next question is how is this ultimate aim going to be achieved? Given
the nature of Da’ish, diplomatic and political activity will not be sufficient
in itself. Unfortunately military action is the only way that a regime based on
force and terrorising people on the ground, can be defeated. The only position
of principle that pacifists can take is that they “would rather die than be
responsible for the death of someone else”, that they will not cause harm
to others, even if that results in others having harm done to them. This is
surely where the pacifist view fails.
What about Saudi Arabia’s RoleSaudi Arabia has been
criticised both for not doing enough to counter Da’ish and indeed for allowing
(private) funding of the terrorist quasi-state. On the first point, Saudi Arabia
did participate in the bombing campaign in early days, but seems to have pulled
back and is now leaving this work to its western “allies”(Washington
Post 25.11.2015). It seems that, having made a token effort for political
reasons, it does not have the appetite to continue the fight. On the second
point, ("Saudi
Funding of ISIS", Lori Boghardt, 23rd June 2014) – an article also quoted in
the Washington Post article, it is clear that the Saudi Government does not
directly fund Da’ish,but there is strong evidence that hundreds of millions of
dollars of support comes from private sources in the Kingdom, usually routed via
other countries such as Kuwait (which is not an anti-Da’ish coalition member,
see below). Given the corrupt plutocracy that runs Saudi Arabia, it
seems inconceivable to me that those funds are not coming directly or otherwise
from people connected with either the Government or the Saudi Royal Family. In
any event such large flows of funds cannot be too difficult to trace.
And Kuwait?Kuwait declared war on Da’ish following the
attack an a Shia mosque in June this year and has announced the purchase of
billions of dollars of arms from France. It had previously suffered a number of
missile attacks following the beginning of the civil war against President
Assad. However at this time I have found no evidence that they are playing a
material role in the current operations. Unlike Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Jordan and
Saudi Arabia It is “pro coalition” but not a coalition member.
But ariel bombardment is proving beneficial today; it is containing Da’ish,
supporting some military successes by rebel troops by removing suicide-attacks,
tanks, artillery etc., and degrading the economic power of Da’ish, through
disruption of the oil-smuggling operation (though not as much as we might
thing. See Raqqa News, 30th November
2015. And while on this point, why are Turkey and Syria still buying oil
and gas from Da’ish?). Thousands of attacks have been undertaken by the USA,
France, Qatar and other coalition air-forces. The government (and others) have
also said that the UK has unique competencies that mean the RAF will make a real
contribution. Nevertheless our 8 Tornados do seem a drop in the ocean compared
what is there already. So in reality, notwithstanding that we can make a
(very) small difference, is it not really just a case that, as part of the
coalition, we need to be acting alongside our allies? If the Paris bombs had
been in London, how would we react to a French or US vote not to support our
response?
The value of military intervention
A massive military intervention such as the invasion of Iraq could be
successful in removing Da’ish, but without an effective political follow-up, as
we saw in Iraq, it will not eliminate this multi-headed hydra. It will merely
reappear in elsewhere in another form. Furthermore I doubt that any of the
players locally would be supportive of such an action by western powers. And
given the Iran/Saudi Arabia politico/religious divide, it is doubtful that a
regional coalition could be formed that could achieve the same end. The only
options available would therefore seem to be to work through established
local armies, perhaps with material and practical support from those
aforementioned regional powers.
Whether there are 70,000 soldiers available on the ground, as the Prime
Minister says, I doubt. Ignore those fighting the Syrian government in the
western provinces and the north; they won’t want to fight in the eastern
provinces. Ignore too those only interested in the material support they gain
from being positive towards the coalition; given half a chance many will revert
to their sectarian nature and may even join with the fundamentalist Al-Queda
factions to continue fighting against the forces of moderation (Spectator,
27th November 2015) In reality we might be dealing with 10-15,000 Sunni
that the opponents of bombing (@YasminQureshiMP in the chamber
today) suggest, plus the Kurds who are not considered favourably in Sunni
and Shia areas after some pretty appalling war crimes of their own. These would
be insufficient, even with a groundswell of local support, to take and to
hold significant swathes of Da’ish territory, let alone the Raqqa and other
cities.
Join the coalition bombing Syria, but other actions are more
important
So yes I am in favour of the UK taking a full part in the coalition action in
Syria. But to be clear, air attacks alone are not going to achieve our
objectives. Ground troops are needed as well, but not ours. And neither will
military action on the ground ever be enough to eliminate the threat of Da’ish.
Political and diplomatic actions is also required to deliver a coalition in
Syria that includes both Assad (supported by Russia) as well as any opposition
that is prepared to participate in an inclusive political process. Inclusion of
Assad is difficult for western coalition partners to swallow, though we have
supported many intolerable regimes around the world to achieve our foreign
policy objectives. More difficult is to get most, or any, of the 70+ opposition
forces to sit with Assad. At least some of them however will surely come round
because they know that ultimately they will not defeat Assed now that Russia has
joined him, and they are also more likely now that both Iran and Saudi Arabia
are working together on a political settlement.
Military action and Middle-eastern political solutions are not the only
requirement. It is necessary to be “tough on terrorism and touch of the causes
of terrorism” (to slightly misquote a former Prime Minister). Those causes fall
into three categories:
1. Enforced poverty and disenfranchisement of failed and absolutist politics
throughout the region. We must speak up and challenge our so-called allies in
the region who deny their own populations freedom of politics and thought
and discriminate against minorities and women. Why do we not stand up to Saudi
Arabia, Turkey or Bahrain (to name just a few) to get away with
it?
2. Tackling racial and religious discrimination against minorities
in western societies. Quite apart from the injustice in its own right,
continuation will inevitably lead to a (small) number of people moving towards
an extremist position?
3. Tackling discrimination, ignorance and intolerance within minority
communities. As well as external factors helping individuals move towards
extremism, there is enough authoritarianism and intolerance of diversity amongst
many minority ethnic communities in the UK to alienate young
people.
Taking action on item 1 requires principled political and diplomatic stands
abroad, even if others may choose to benefit by taking a different line. Taking
action on items 2 and 3 is more difficult. Government can legislate and the
courts and police can take action, but real change starts with education of
children and influencing people throughout their lives; it takes a generation or
more. But we should not shy away from this; the levels of gender and racial
discrimination, though still existing today, is immensely less than in my
childhood when racist thoughts and language were used on a daily basis in public
and private as quite “normal”. Notwithstanding that he was then a figure of
fun, it is inconceivable now that the character of Alf Garnett would be allowed
on TV at all, let alone before the watershed.
To tackle item 3 there also needs to be another change and one that is
probably most difficult for liberal white middle-class males like me. Liberal
values, in part that have lead to the inclusiveness in much of British society
that is the corollary of addressing discrimination. It has also resulted in a
level of “moral relativism” that has allowed the continuation of practices in
some minority communities that are either illegal or morally unacceptable to the
majority of British citizens. By majority I am not saying to “white” or
“christian”, but inevitably the core of what is termed “British” values do stem
from our political and social past so it is idle to claim that they have not
been a major influence. What we should no longer tolerate is “cultural”
behaviour which conflicts with the broad values of Britain today in the 21st
century.
As individuals we need to speak up about forced marriage, FGM, gender
discrimination. We should challenge extreme and illiberal practices wherever we
see them including religious practices and intolerance, voodoo cults, violent
and invasive exorcism that are imposed on non-consenting adults. Let us be clear
that just as religious people should be able in most cases to excuse themselves
from doing something that is against their “faith”, so religion or culture
should not be an acceptable excuse for imposing personal preferences on
others. If the majority are cowed by accusations of “racism” and
“discrimination” from speaking up then how much more difficult will it be for
those in the minority communities who feel trapped, from speaking their minds? Rather straying off the topic of bombing Syria, but it just goes to show how complicated the whole issue is!
Tim O’Brien
2/12/15
No comments:
Post a Comment