Syria: to war or not to war?

"While the Labour whips were applauding, laughing and cheering Miliband in their office, Assad napalmed a school. Yeah, very funny stuff."

This statement, from former Conservative MP Louise Mensch on Twitter, sums up the general feeling in Britain about the potential war on Syria. It has become, not a war against President Assad, but a war between Miliband and Cameron. His view is that Assad’s actions are war crimes, and need to be dealt with. Miliband’s views are the same, but he feels Britain should learn from the mistakes of Iraq: we can’t keep fighting the Middle East, the consequences are too dangerous.  So both men agree that Assad is wrong in using chemical weapons, and something needs to be done about it. However, Miliband feels Britain should not be bullied into acting in the same way as the USA, so blocked Cameron and weakened the PM’s reputation. Now, Britain will play no part in Obama’s upcoming intervention in the Syrian conflict. Is this the right outcome?

New York Daily News front page, 30th August 2013

The American press was clearly shocked by the news that Britain would not engage in military strikes on Syria, as seen on the front page of yesterday’s New York Daily News (above). Many commentators believe this signals the end of the “special relationship” between Britain and the US and the front page of The Sun this morning certainly repeated that belief (below).

The Sun front page, 31st August 2013

However, should British focus be on David Cameron or Ed Miliband, or should we be paying more attention to President Assad and Barack Obama? As Louise Mensch pointed out, while the British government was wrapped up in its own domestic politics, this international crisis was growing even more horrific. John Kerry, US Secretary of State, announced that estimates of Assad’s victims have now reached 1,429 people, 426 of those being children. This means that now more than 100,000 people are believed to have been killed in Syria since the conflict began in March 2011. As Kerry announced, the US is to push ahead with fighting “this crime against conscience, this crime against humanity”. It looks as it France will offer support, although Obama’s actions will be, in his own words, “a limited, narrow act” and will involve no boots on the ground. Importantly though, Obama has assured the world that he will continue his fight against Syria. Whether this is the best move or not remains to be seen. As the Daily Mail announced to Britain today that “Obama plans to blitz Syria without us”, all we can do is wait and see what happens.

A recent photo from Syria showing children killed by the chemical attacks.

I hope that Cameron will do his best to aid the situation in Syria. As the photo above shows, the conflict has reached the point where something must be done: Assad’s actions are very clearly war crimes. However, I am equally pleased that Britain will not offer military support in the campaign. Perhaps Labour is right, perhaps we should learn lessons from our past mistakes in the Middle East – we have fought dangerous dictators before and not always returned victorious. Assad may be a horrific tyrant, but is the answer to the problem really military strikes, or will this simply incur more unnecessary deaths of innocent people? David Cameron said he recognised that the British public did not want war with Syria, even though the disturbing, upsetting images and videos circulating the internet are particularly moving.

Moreover, should the Syrian problem be a political one or a humanitarian one? Did Miliband focus too much on ruining Cameron to see that the bigger problem was the loss of thousands of innocent lives? This argument is convincing but so is Miliband’s – why should we always do as the Americans do? Will the planned military strikes on Syria end Assad’s crimes or simply provoke him and increase them?

This post is full of questions, because I don’t know what I think. It is true that we have an already struggling economy that does not need to spend money on foreign policy like this. It is true that America can cope without us, and leaving them to face Assad alone does not make us suddenly enemies. It is true that we, the British people, do not want war with Syria.

However, it is equally true that while we are concentrating on Cameron’s ruined reputation, the death toll in Syria is still increasing. At times like these, I cannot help but remember Amnesty International’s Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1: “Everyone has the right to life”. Perhaps the USA has it right. Assad is a murderous thug who should be stopped, and perhaps he can be. I hope, for Syria’s sake, that Obama doesn’t need us, and his actions will put an end to this global crisis. And won’t Ed Miliband look silly then.