US President Barack Obama said he has decided to take military action against Syria, but will seek authorization from Congress before he does.
I think the solution lay there Graham .... its should be encouraged at least !
Rarely post but read often ... I think you may Brian have a real handle on the situation .
I think your reasoning is too simplistic, certainly Assad has been a good arms customer of Russia and previously the Soviet Union. However, Putin has been surprisingly rational on the Syria issue and what he has just said is so unreasonable. Please bear in mind that the USA is 'supporting' if mainly rhetorically the same Al Qaeda who were the USA's biggest enemies not so very long ago and the reason they are still in Afghanistan. Those rebels who consider us 'unbelievers' and envision a complete break from all foreign influences in Muslim countries leading to the downfall of the 'Jewish-Christian' conspiracy against their faith and the creation of a new world-wide Islamic caliphate.
They also believe that killing civilians is religiously sanctioned and ignore any religious/Quranic scripture that can be interpreted as forbidding the murder of civilians. They are the major driving force among the 'rebels' yet despite their babaric ideology are being supported by the USA.
I do not doubt there is more freedom of speech in the USA than in the other countries you name, however on recent form (not including Manning) people are far more likely to serve a very long prison sentence for using that privilege than soldiers who have been sentenced for mass killings. Their way of presenting and then doing democracy leaves lot to be desired. The lies Blair used to take the UK to war against Iraq were so called intelligence gathered by US people.
There must be a healthy benefit of the doubt in both directions, recent mistakes in Islamic countries have not improved relations one iota and another mistake would not bode well. The USA's support for the deposal of the democratically elected Egyptian president a couple of weeks ago and what is happening in eastern Turkey at present with US approval actually bring the 'Islamic Revolution' another few hundred kilometres closer to us but the Atlantic Ocean remains there for the USA. There is much to think about. Suing for a ceasefire and negotiations, including the democratic election Assad has not ruled out, is a far better idea that bombing chunks of an already war torn city and killing the civilians for Al Qaeda. Or...?
Russia is supporting Assad because Putin is more like a dictator than a democratically elected President, and if one goes, there goes another.
I am not an advocate for the USA, but there is more freedom of speech, notwithstanding the Patriot Act, than in Russia, Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Turkey et al.
We wait to see how Obama works this one out.
I spent a year in Syria longer ago than I care to calculate (1985/86) as an undergraduate and it is truly horrible seeing what is happening now. I don't see any non-messy way out of it. It is very very sad and I hope that the families I got to know then are all right, whichever side they are on.
The American argument seems to be that they have "evidence" of the bombs being launched - when and where - and tracked to their landing point. 11 separate sites. I would imagine that 11 separate strikes would be outside the skills of the apparent rag-tag and bobtail of the "insurgent" army. As for why it was done? It seems to be such a cess pit out there that it all defies logic! And, to go back to the original thread - was the UK shamed? - am not sure that they were - it looked like a real victory for proper democracy where MP's voted by their consciences, not the party whip. That must have been very hard for most of them, having to think for themselves. Whether the vote was correct or not, regretfully, only time - and another few thousand corpses - will tell!!
Glad the UK voted against, though 13 votes was scarily narrow.
On a second point though, why would Assad risk using chemical weapons when his regime was well aware of what the west's reaction would be, when he was reportedly winning conventionally. They stood by and did nothing in the beginning, when the rebels seem to be gaining ground. False flag?
Take care, my friend!! Beware the 3am knock on the door :-)
Hmm, Putin (who I think is as much a ruthless pig as a politician) has just made sense. He has challenged the USA to present their 'evidence' to the Security Council rather than just fire cruise missiles at government targets. That is, very much to my surprise as well, part of some very statesman like words and gestures from him, which Obama and Cameron essentially appear to lack at present. Hollande is an out and out dork!
In 1945 it was as optimistic an expectation as the UN, so can we really expect see all those Cairo pronunciations turned to action and regional peace? Perhaps...
Maybe, just maybe - the Arab League will finally find its role??!
"The world needs what it aspired to be more than ever." And how!!!
The USA *is* getting there - if one remembers that, in truth, as a country they are only just adults - and desperate to make their mark on the world; whereas, the "old world" is all but moribund. Bizarre as it may sound, I am beginning to think that Russia has become more "statesmanlike" than the West - but the proof will be in the eating....
Oh yes Graham. The UN, for a couple of whose agencies I have often worked as a consultant for many years on and off, is a total disappointment. Rather than ever become its own 'person' but the hand of those who pull its strings. The world needs what it aspired to be more than ever.
The letter from the Speaker of the Syrian Parliament is indeed plausible but is anybody listening? It is Syria who are actually trying to get everybody round the table and China and Russia have been trying to push for that for a while. I am horrified about where the USA and in their tow the UK are coming from somewhat.
As ever, Brian, thanks for a thoughtful piece.
I am just glad that it is not *me* who has to make such decisions!!
I think it is fairly obvious that not even the USA (save the ever present gung-ho, never mind the consequences, there is money to be made here - contingent) want to get involved. That Obama has - apart from his "red-line" trodden a *very* cautious path.
What a dis-appointment the UN has been - much like its predecessor, the League of Nations! Founded with high aspirations, but mired in the politics of self-interest.
I think your economic argument is the best summary - and for how much longer can the UK and USA - inter alia - continue to be the world's policeman? It is un-affordable, unfortunately!!
Did you see the letter from the Speaker of the Syrian Parliament (unfortunately named Jihad!) to the British Parliament? It was very plausible.....
I cannot believe that somebody as lacking in substance as Miliband lead his party, some LibDems and a few Tories to a vote against supporting the USA and going to war. I spend far too much time every day reading political analysis but at present feel it is almost a duty. What emerges this time is that Hague rolled out the ball by saying the UK was going in with the USA and that there was more than sufficient evidence about who used chemical weapons. That is where a few people picked up on two points. Firstly, the UN observers are in Syria (until today) to look at whether or not chemical weapons were used although not specifically by whom. If the evidence of who used them emerges then that is 'supplementary' but could be used for a political argument for action against Assad's regime or whoever. Secondly, Hague's approach and that subsequently used by Cameron was far too much like Blair's way of pressing for a very convincing majority vote to go to war against Iraq. Today, although we still do not know far too much of the awful truth, everybody, irrespective of political stance, knows it was largely spin and little actual fact. In other words, Blair lied to parliament. Nobody wants a repeat performance.
The problem at present is that the attitude of those in the Cabinet who are ultimately responsible for a decision does not reflect public opinion. Many more MPs have taken that into account, perhaps in defence of their seats with 2015 approaching and some thinking about Blair's approach whilst some of the old grandees such as George Galloway who gave a very sane and not at all ranting speech (which few people had expected - I certainly streamed it live expecting a few good laughs but was impressed) have argued against and turned a few heads. The other side of this is that the Old Etonian hegemony at the top, their rather anti-people colleagues and advisers like Lynton Crosby have cut every imaginable service back whilst forcing up the cost of living in an economy where salaries/wages are frozen or do not reflect the cost of living. Then they are willing to go to war which is, as people know too well, about the costliest of all expenditure to begin with which then needs to be replaced from the public purse. Balance that against food banks, unemployment, homes being repossessed and other things that are almost daily news and they simply do not appear to be in the same world as most other people.
So democracy played an ace card and trumped Cameron and company. He has since done himself no favour with rants such as accusing Miliband of 'supporting Russia' which the entire press has treated as infantile. Preceding that and whether Cameron had direct input or not, what was told to the Times that 'the Foreign Office and No 10 thought Milliband is a f**king c**t and a copper-bottomed s**t' which the entire press has also joyously picked up has discredited them further. Hague and Osborne giggling all through the debate leading up to that vote has been much reported, Osborne's comments since largely ridiculed, Gove's ranting makes him look all the more ridiculous and Gove's wife Sarah Vine's Tweets added to that.
At present, apart from democracy rather than any party reflecting the nation, parliament and the Cabinet particularly are looking like a primary school playground. Meanwhile rebels have been apprehended on the Turkish border with chemical weapons and it probably was the government who massacred people, but sabre rattling then bombing innocent civilians which is par to the course in modern warfare continues. However, without the UK which is the majority of the electorate's position.
It is, of course not as simple as saving face or saving soldiers.It is about
erradicating the right to bully...and above all making sure that chemical warefare is
seen as unacceptable. It will spread like a plague if allowed to do so.
Before you know where you are terrorists will be landing in London with the sole purpose
of creating chemical destruction.
This is the nub of it. The Arab League has condemned these atrocious attacks and a couple of countries are arming the rebels.
For the "West" on its own to strike is like throwing a match into a barrel of petrol.
I am pleased to see that the Commons threw out both motions, I never thought that I would be applauding Ed Miliband!