Something must be done
The words that should
really bring a chill to us all are those above: Something must be done. It is
the current political reaction to a perceived crisis. Unable to let it drift
past, the contemporary media culture demands answers – or all too often
actions – to every issue as it arises, so politicians and their
advisors gather together in crisis meetings because Something must be done.
Actually, if there is an opportunity to appear
to do something, that would be the ideal answer, but
doing nothing is not possible. So it is with Syria. A
complex, difficult, contradictory crisis with millions of lives dependent on
how it plays out, yet because the US President said that use of chemical weapons
was a red-line, and because we (as ever) agreed, now something must be done.
The military, using just-retired generals to let us know their view, want to
know the objectives, plans C & D after plans A and B, but they
won’t get those answers. We are not planning military action in Syria
to any objective, only to be seen to be doing something in response to Asad’s use of chemical weapons. Apparently, we
‘cannot sit back and do nothing.’ There are a number of
questions the sceptic could raise. Why should WE do something? We have enough
problems at home without invented ones abroad. We are not a world leader anymore, we are just trying to claw ourselves out of a
hideous economic crisis. We do not need dangerous, foreign adventures. Except
all our ‘leaders’ (I use the word in purely its technical
meaning) want us to be at the ‘top table’, ‘punching above
our weight’. In other words old-fashioned, willy-waving
macho politics. I had hoped that by slashing the military budgets, there
would be a concurrent understanding that we can’t afford to be a world
policeman any longer. Sadly, I was mistaken. So what situation is it
that we are aiming to DO something in? Syria is a horrible mess, and we must
all feel for the civilian population having their lives ripped apart. But
this is difficult stuff. We are against Asad, so
apparently support the opposition. I heard Jeremy Bowen this morning in
Beirut explaining the incredulity there that the West ‘was now
supporting Al Quaeda’, a prominent part of
the opposition groupings. Asad’s Alawites sect may be terrified at any opposition alliance
coming to power, expecting to be massacred, but the prominent Christian
community also fear the opposition and will support Assad until the very end.
Are we really ready to support a massacred of minority Muslims and one of the
longest standing Christian churches, because we must do something? In the
wider middle east we have a sectarian battle between Sunni and Shia (almost everywhere), between Islamist and secular
government (almost everywhere), between a new form of Islamic democracy and
military dictatorship. This is the context into
which we want to ‘do something’ apparently to
‘punish’ Assad for using the wrong weapons. Where are we placing
ourselves in the above context with a mythical ‘surgical strike’
from as far away as possible? Are we aiming to ally with Islamists or
secularists, Sunni or Shia? Do we want democracy,
or (as in Egypt adn Palestine) are happy to support
the military if democracy gives the wrong result? But most of all, how can we intervene
in a civil war and not take sides? So desperate though the
situation is in Syria, appalling though the lives are of its people, and as
horrifying as the use of chemical weapons may be, in my view it is not up to
us to do something. We can appear to do something, make it clear the chemical
weapons use will not be forgotten, threaten things in the future, but
intervene in this explosive, complex religious and political disaster that is
the current middle east, no. For once can we not learn
our lessons and walk away? |
|
Blog #6 |
|
Blog #7 |
|
Blog #8 |
|
Blog #9 |
|
Blog #10 |
|
Comments |
Some comments copied from Facebook: |
Geoff Challinger
Don't agree and I'm a total pansy. I think this is a classic instance where
some form of pan-Arab force would be a better policeman than us but the
principle is the same. Intervention's gone wrong but it's also gone right. Let's
put our feet up and watch warring factions fight it out worked really well in
Srebrenica, didn't it? And then a few months later
NATO actions in Kosovo worked (ish). It should be
UN-driven intervention though. Or are you're saying that no level of violence
perpetrated on a population merits intervention? Philip Jones I'm with Brian on
this one. Have we forgotten Iraq? This has to be the UN - doesn't it? Geoff Challinger
UN-mandated for sure (although there is an argument that by using chemical
warfare the right for the UN to intervene is already triggered). But standing
on the sidelines saying "ooh that's not very nice" will assuredly
not improve matters. Peter Birks Not necessarily
my view, but an excellent picture from Downing Street. |
|
If
you would like to comment on any of these Blog pieces please email me on: bjc@briancreese.co.uk