Syria. What Next?

I wonder whether any of my American readers are aware that last night, a vote in the British Parliament defeated the government of the day and rejected military action by the British in Syria. This will have ramifications for the Obama administration. If America is to take military action against the Syrian government, it will not have the British as an ally or as part of a coalition.

There are so many issues that have arisen as a result of the Syrian conflict. First, it is a civil war. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are reportedly fighting on the side of the “rebels” so if the West sides with the rebels, it will have as an ally the people it is fighting in Afghanistan. Experience should tell all politicians that you don’t get involved in a civil war. Second, there have been numerous outrages in Syria during the past two years. Why are these deemed to be acceptable whereas the use of chemical weapons is not? I suspect this has more to do with the fact that Syria is not strategic, i.e. it has no significant oil resources. Third, would the action contemplated by the West be legal? If the action is taken on humanitarian grounds to save life and is proportionate, evidently it would be lawful, even if the United Nations does not pass an appropriate resolution in support.

Fourth, where is the evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons? Secretary of State Kerry and Vice-President Biden have both made strong statements to the effect that the evidence is compelling but none has been disclosed. In 1962, when the Russians placed missiles in Cuba, Senator Adlai Stevenson produced photographic evidence of the Russian actions at the United Nations, thus proving to the world the truth of America’s allegations. I accept that UN inspectors are investigating but until they have reported, does the American government expect us to rely solely on its word? What has convinced me that the American allegations are true is that the last thing President Obama wants is to commit to military action in Syria. His government is raising the rhetoric because the President’s own red line, the use of chemical weapons, has indeed been crossed. 

In UK, the big issue has been fudged. What action do you take? What is proportionate? I think this is nonsense. What has to be decided is whether or not to do anything. If the decision is to do nothing, “rogue” government and terrorist groups will be encouraged to use chemical weapons or tactical nuclear weapons in the knowledge they are unlikely to be challenged.

What has not been discussed, at least in public, is a response that is disproportionate. The Syrian government is not going to change its mind about the use of chemical weapons if the response from the international community is limited to the firing of a few Tomahawks and Cruise missiles. The disproportionate response would be an all-out bombing campaign against strategic targets in Syrian government held cities, until those Syrians in charge realise that the apocalypse has arrived. Such a proposal is unlawful. I am also aware that Russia and China will be less than happy were their Middle East client to be attacked. However, the disproportionate response is an option, albeit an extremely dangerous one.

Let us assume that no action is taken. The Middle East continues to be a powder keg. What threat would stop Iran from firing a tactical nuclear weapon at Israel? If Israel believes this is a real risk, what would prevent them from pre-emptive action?  Possibly, the knowledge that the West will deliver killer blows from its massive weapons arsenal might make regimes think twice, or they may retaliate in ways that will escalate and prolong a tragic situation.

In the nineteenth century, the British leadership referred to foreign affairs as “the Great Game.” More than a century later, it is no longer a game. I don’t get scared easily but the situation in Syria and its potential consequences are truly frightening. We don’t need knee-jerk reactions from politicians. What we need is clear thinking and decision making. After all, military solutions, as in Iraq and Afghanistan have not worked. Political solutions have a better chance.