Damascus gas attack - who did it and how will the west spin it ?

[Bryn]

... I do hope those armchairs are comfy and that your latte's are not getting cold.

No armchair, latte or greengrocer's apostrophe for this old soldier, thanks.

[eighthobstruction]

Armchairs, straw in wind, lines in sand, red lines, shots across the bow, not being able to stand by....all cliches used in yesterdays debate (+ a good many more)....to which I add a camel and a needle....Now Ashdown and Hammond have started the aftermath cliche train....If people talk/orate in such vague terms how do they expect people to believe....

[ahinton]

Significant? Wishful thinking. A majority of 13 is hardly significant.

Really? On an issue as important as this one? I would have thought that to lose such a vote and leave the leader of the opposition looking as though he's been the prime mover in preventing Britain going to war is of very considrable significance, frankly.

At least this time (unlike Blair) they didn't magic up some hyped dossier.....at least David Cameron has some integrity

That's true - but DC did recall Parliament especially for this a day earlier than it would otherwise have sat and one would presume that a PM doesn't do that kind of thing without being supremely confident in getting the desired result; what Blair lacked in integrity is therefore arguably matched by what Cameron lacks in judgement.

Reading through most of the reasons being put forward for no intervention were the same ones that were used re Libya. Feet on the ground...didn't happen. Sucked into another war....didn't happen. Middle East conflagration ....didn't happen.

The fact that Libya has largely dropped out of the news to be replaced by other Middle Eastern conflicts is hardly indicative that "the job was done" there. As for your suggestion of there being no Middle Eastern conflagration or likelihood thereof, I can only imagine that you must be living on another planet, since the once much-vaunted "Arab Spring" has largely turned into winter already, Tunisia, Libya and especially Egypt remain in creasingly unstable states, the Arab/Israeli situation hardly has light at the end of its very long tunnel and the nations immediately bordering Syria are clearly and inevitably affected by what's going on there (not to mention Iran and Afghanistan).

The principal point here, however, is not only that good sense has at least so far prevailed to the extent that there is due recognition of the fact (already discussed here) that violence is not amenable to curtailment by means of yet more violence but also that the proper target of any intervention has not even been established yet; this fact illustrates that, whilst the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" is a dangerous enough fallacy, not being entirely certain as to the true identity of my enemy is an even more risky one. Yes, the greater likelihood that the chemcials used were indeed weapons and intended for use - and used - as such and that the more likely culprit among several possibilities is the Assad régime but, until and unless both of these are established beyond doubt, there could be no justification whatsoever for intervention in any case.

So next time...how many dead from a chemical attack? 30? 300? 3000?

Who knows? - but then who knows how many more might be dead as a direct consequence of military intervention in the area concerned? - not to mention how many more again might have their lives put at risk by the spread of a conflict in which it's not even certain yet as to who's been responsble for what?

[JimD]

I wonder if I am alone in thinking that last evening's resolution of this issue is probably pragmatically for the best, but also in feeling somewhat ashamed of the underlying position the UK appears to have adopted.

Beyond this, it would be useful to know how many people, on these boards and elsewhere, who argue against any action so vigorously, and apparently on grounds specific to the case, are in fact pacifists and would oppose the use of force under any circumstances, whatever atrocity had been committed, and however conclusive the evidence of guilt.

[eighthobstruction]

I know what mean you JIm, but in my case I am not a pacifist : only last year I picked up one of my neighbours by the lapels and threw him over his car bonnet.....

There is no shame, we have been one of the Police Men for years, a proven track record of stopping people getting killed and getting people killed....

My angle was that violence would have been the wrong move in this case....(no matter how much we would like to march the real perpetrators out against a wall and shoot them)....nothing is being condoned, forgiven or ignored....passed by....[and I probably should have taken no action against my neighbour too]

ED: After seeing most of the debate yesterday we have to be glad that Bernard Jenkin MP is not in charge of anything....

[french frank]

Significant? Wishful thinking. A majority of 13 is hardly significant.

Not numerically significant, but significant in that the coalition holds a majority in parliament.

The complicating factor is that it's impossible to attack Assad et al, even assuming that they were guilty of the chemical attacks, without taking the side of a very mixed bunch which includes some of the very people who have been behind the attacks on the West. You have to wonder whether simply attacking Assad is enough for them to switch their alliance or whether it would just be doing their dirty work for them without reconciling them to the West's activities in other parts of the world. I wonder which ...

[aeolium]

I wonder if I am alone in thinking that last evening's resolution of this issue is probably pragmatically for the best, but also in feeling somewhat ashamed of the underlying position the UK appears to have adopted.

Beyond this, it would be useful to know how many people, on these boards and elsewhere, who argue against any action so vigorously, and apparently on grounds specific to the case, are in fact pacifists and would oppose the use of force under any circumstances, whatever atrocity had been committed, and however conclusive the evidence of guilt.

I know what you mean, JimD, but it's extremely difficult to see how military intervention would improve things or whether it would simply result in another mess like Iraq, where sectarian bombings take place almost daily, ten years after the end of military action. Not only that but the principal countries whose governments have been most strongly arguing in favour of military action - the USA, the UK, France and Turkey - are those which are saddled with terrible historical baggage in the region: Turkey, because of the Ottoman Empire; the UK and France because of the Sykes-Picot agreement between those countries which made Syria a colony of France; the UK and the USA because of recent disastrous Middle Eastern interventions. I thought early on in the conflict that providing military as well as humanitarian assistance to the rebels might have prevented the worst of the Syrian army's assaults on civilians with tanks and fighter jets but now the Syrian opposition is incredibly fragmented and there are many other regional players. It is already a regional conflict, with Hezbollah and Iran involved on Assad's side and Saudi Arabia and Qatar (and possibly Turkey) providing arms and fighters to the rebels.

This recent article gives an idea about the different factions making up the rebel forces, and many of them have different interests and objectives. This will not only make any kind of military assistance by Western countries problematic, but will make any negotiations towards a political settlement very complicated.

[ahinton]

I know what you mean, JimD, but it's extremely difficult to see how military intervention would improve things or whether it would simply result in another mess like Iraq, where sectarian bombings take place almost daily, ten years after the end of military action. Not only that but the principal countries whose governments have been most strongly arguing in favour of military action - the USA, the UK, France and Turkey - are those which are saddled with terrible historical baggage in the region: Turkey, because of the Ottoman Empire; the UK and France because of the Sykes-Picot agreement between those countries which made Syria a colony of France; the UK and the USA because of recent disastrous Middle Eastern interventions. I thought early on in the conflict that providing military as well as humanitarian assistance to the rebels might have prevented the worst of the Syrian army's assaults on civilians with tanks and fighter jets but now the Syrian opposition is incredibly fragmented and there are many other regional players. It is already a regional conflict, with Hezbollah and Iran involved on Assad's side and Saudi Arabia and Qatar (and possibly Turkey) providing arms and fighters to the rebels.

This recent article gives an idea about the different factions making up the rebel forces, and many of them have different interests and objectives. This will not only make any kind of military assistance by Western countries problematic, but will make any negotiations towards a political settlement very complicated.

That's a very useful article indeed, as are your remarks here; each serves, among other things, to illustrate well the overbearing difficulties that stand in the way of the achievement of resolution of what is clearly a vastly more complex problem than the French, US or other potential or actual sabre-rattlers seem prepared to accept. Given this level of factionalisation and the fact that some of it involves potential or actual sponsorship of this agenda and that from outside Syria itself, anyone outside that country ought to be extremely wary of wading to provide anything other than strictly humanitarian aid but, as has already been stated here, even that hindrance to the possible success of military intervention is severaly compounded by the current lack of knowledge as to who's committing what atrocities in Syria.

On top of that, it's a relief to note various commentators pointing out that Britain's days of playing international police officer (not to mention its days of being remotely able to afford to do so) are long gone and need to be recognised as such.

[eighthobstruction]

#142 & #143....both well put....

[eighthobstruction]

I was impressed by the debate and I thought the Conservatives of all types/sides were very impressive in the way they handled themselves (perhaps the holiday has done them some good)....Labour Party and Cross -bench interjections particularly good....a good day for our democracy....Milliband did well because he was himself, without the fake bluster he often manufactures....

[edashtav]

#142 & #143....both well put....

AMEN to that.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

#142 & #143....both well put....

I agree.

[scottycelt]

My own view is that this has as much to do with internal party politics as anything that is happening in Syria. The same is true in the US where Republicans are actually supporting the British example and are now demanding a similar vote in Congress. Anything to destabilise the Democrat Obama. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with a view that is largely supported by the American Right, British Left and Nigel Farage.

I too share the grave doubts over calls for any sort of attack on Syria but the fact is that many thousands more innocent civilians will die in the country while we stand by and do nothing to help. It is a truly horrible dilemma for the West.

The cheering by some MPs when the result was announced was simply nauseating. Whatever the result it should have been received in appropriate silence.

[ahinton]

My own view is that this has as much to do with internal party politics as anything that is happening in Syria. The same is true in the US where Republicans are actually supporting the British example and are now demanding a similar vote in Congress. Anything to destabilise the Democrat Obama. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with a view that is largely supported by the American Right, British Left and Nigel Farage.

I can well understand that, but...

I too share the grave doubts over calls for any sort of attack on Syria but the fact is that many thousands more innocent civilians will die in the country while we stand by and do nothing to help. It is a truly horrible dilemma for the West.

And how many less will die if other natiuons implement military intgervention, especially when they can't be sure who their target/s are supposed to be?

The cheering by some MPs when the result was announced was simply nauseating. Whatever the result it should have been received in appropriate silence.

That would hve been more dignified, certainly although, again, I can understand the mix of euphoria and sheer relief that probably gave rise to that reaction.

[Padraig]

I am inclined to agree with JimD who is torn between relief and shame. Whatever happens, the UK is now out of it. That they might have made a difference is no longer relevant. That they may have made enemies of former friends - who cares? That they may have encouraged others to take the same line of non-interference - that's their decision. Yes it's a relief that we don't have to fight, if it comes to that, but I don't feel a celebration coming on. We are not going to fight no matter what.