Having returned from it's summer recess and its autumn conference recess that followed almost immediately afterwards the UK Parliament seems to be moving closer to a vote authorising British air-strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated groups in Syria as well as Iraq.
This idea has been discussed for almost as long as the UK has been conducting air-strikes in Iraq and I have long opposed it. However I am now on the verge of changing that position and supporting it.
My main objection the UK strikes in Syria is that the US-led coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve - does not have a strategy to defeat ISIL in Iraq, Syria or anywhere else.
Therefore the greatest contribution the UK could make to defeat ISIL was to stay out of Syria as a way to exert pressure on the other parts of CJTFOIR to develop this much needed strategy.
However on September 30th (30/9/15) Russia began conducting its own anti-ISIL operations in Syria.
So while CJTFOIR still does not have a strategy any pressure that the UK could exert by staying out of Syria is utterly dwarfed by the pressure exerted by Russia being in Syria. As such I think it is now time for the UK to join operations in Syria to help CJTFOIR develop a strategy from within.
I still though have significant reservations about UK involvement in Syria. The most serious of these is that any Parliamentary motion will be introduced by the government of David Cameron.
In 2011 Cameron's government authorised the wholly illegal bombing of Libya with overthrew the government of Muammer Qaddafi and plunged the country into the chaos it remains in to this day.
In 2013 Cameron's government introduced a motion calling for the UK to conduct air-strikes in Syria in support of ISIL and associated groups. Fortunately this motion which was based on deeply flawed legal and strategic reasoning was defeated.
From the tone of the discussions over a new mission in Syria there seems to be absolutely no cognition on the part of the government that the 2011 mission in Libya and the proposed 2013 mission in Syria were horrific mistakes.
In fact some have even go so far to suggest that people who voted against the 2013 Syrian intervention could change their minds this time because they've realised their mistake.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact that we are having to intervene in Syria now against the people we were backing in 2013 is testament to how stupid we were to back them in 2013. In fact I would go so far as to say that it is evidence that the people who voted in support of the 2013 intervention are dangerous incompetents who should never be allowed to make such a decision ever again.
Also people who voted against an intervention in 2013 are talking about backing an intervention now to help establish the safe-zones that Turkey has long demanded. What these people have failed to understand is that Turkey wants to establish safe-zone for ISIL and associated groups not the people who are being threatened by them.
This is why since Turkey joined CJTFOIR a sort of protective dome has been established over ISIL positions in Syria while the Kurds who have been highly effective in fighting ISIL are coming under almost daily attack from Turkish jets.
I am also extremely concerned about people who are talking about voting for an intervention even if there is no United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution authorising such action.
Putting aside the fact that any intervention would be wholly illegal without a UNSC resolution this is an entirely moot point because there is already UNSC resolution 2170 (2014) authorising military action.
If people think that there needs to be a further UNSC resolution to allow for a UK intervention in Syria then they are either woefully mis-informed about the important decision they are being asked to make or they think that 2170 is not sufficient for the type of intervention they intend to conduct.
The only groups in Syria that are not covered by 2170 is the Syrian government and the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG). If UK Parliamentarians think that is not sufficient for a UK intervention I can only conclude that they wish to intervene to fight either the Syrian government or the YPG.
That brings back the question of whether they wish to fight and defeat ISIL or whether they wish to fight for ISIL.
These reservations of mine can of course be addressed by the specific wording of the motion. For example it can contain text strictly limiting UK forces to action only against those groups named in resolution 2170. It could also contain specific language recognising the YPG as a valued ally in the fight against ISIL.
It could go even further and explicitly forbid UK forces from taking action against the Syrian government such as by establishing Turkish safe-zones.
The clause that would really re-assure me though is one authorising Her Majesty's (HM) Armed Forces to conduct the operation. Although they will be answerable to Parliament in this operation neither David Cameron nor any member of his government may give orders or in anyway try to direct the operation.
22:00 on 17/10/15 (UK date).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment