Skip to main content

What is a 'punitive' military strike against the Syrian regime?

The argument to be put to parliament by Cameron and Clegg and supported by Miliband for a military strike against the Syrian regime is that 'something must be done'. I have never really liked the 'something must be done' line of reasoning. It usually means that the end game has not been thought through. It usually represents a degree of hand wringing. 'We can't stand idly by' is often used when it might be better to do just that. It is of course a difficult choice. To do nothing. But you should only act if by so doing it will be effective in bringing about a better outcome. If it is simply to 'punish' then what really would be achieved? If it is to deter future use of chemical weapons then what kind of action would be sufficient to do so?

The use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime is abhorrent. Of course it is. But at best what is proposed is 'punitive' action to deter future use of chemical weapons. Unless it is well targeted I cannot see it acting to deter Assad from future use unless it is carefully targeted to take out his stock of chemical weapons or his means of deploying them.

I suspect it is desperation that is driving the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Both sides are desperate to break the deadlock in a bloody civil war. An effective strike against Assad would weaken his regime further, and it is weakness, desperation that is driving the use of chemical weapons by the regime. Cameron must demonstrate how a strike against the Assad regime would achieve its objective.

An effective strike against Assad would likely tilt the balance in favour of the opposition forces. If this is part of the objective then we should be honest about it. Indeed there could be a better argument for such an objective. The problem would then be whether such 'honesty' would be equally 'legal'. And here we have the Iraq problem repeating itself.  Transatlantic differences between Bush and Blair are instructive. Blair's justification was 'weapons of mass destruction'; Bush's objective was 'regime change'. A smidgeon of difference perhaps. But in reality the later required 'shock and awe'; it is doubtful whether the elimination of  WMD justified it. (Now I know I will be jumped on for using the word 'doubtful' in such context).

France, the UK and the USA emphasise the importance of any action against Assad being proportionate. So far none have spelled out what this means.

A punitive strike against the Syrian regime begs another question. Would we be willing to strike 'punitively' against the opposition forces should it be found that they too have used chemical weapons? On the latter, the jury is out. We just do not have sufficient evidence.

I suspect that behind the rhetoric from France, Britain and the USA is a deeper seated desire to do something to tilt the balance of power in favour of the opposition forces. Red lines are usually invoked to bring about justification for action rather than as the objective itself. This is true in Iraq. Blair's current justification is that 'well Saddam was a thoroughly bad person' and his regime killed hundreds of thousands; all of which is true, but it didn't need a 'red line' to be crossed to tell us that.  I would certainly love to see the Assad regime toppled, but what will be the aftermath?

I also suspect that a strike against the Assad regime will lead to the need for further action as it is likely that the Assad regime will increase its determination to survive at all costs. The die is cast. The regime would have the hangman's noose to look forward to should they be toppled.

I will listen carefully but sceptically to the arguments presented  to parliament by Cameron and Clegg.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno