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

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …