War postponed

I was as surprised as everybody else that our Parliament has soundly rebuffed the call for airstrikes against Syria in the light of the (so far only probable) use of chemical weapons by Assad. But I’m also glad.What was strange in the few days it was being discussed was the lack of in-depth examination of the issue by the press here. It was almost as if war had already been declared, and everyone assumed that, like Iraq, Afghanistan and a succession of other British military conflicts, it was just a matter of formality to get the thing going. As in 2003, Mr Cameron’s “No decision has been made” was assumed to mean only “the missiles have not yet been fired.”

It’s only after the parliamentary debate that people seem to be seriously addressing the lack of any real strategic aims, withdrawal strategy or, indeed, legal or moral justification. “Something must be done” seems the strongest argument in favour, which was always a bad reason for ineffective interventions when I was a doctor, just as it is for unscientific badger culls to fight bovine TB. If you’re going to take, or lose, many lives you’d better have a plan, rather than just the impulse to do something awesome.

But it turns out that the lessons of the Iraq debacle (which I opposed at the time) and the prolonged Afghan war (which I saw as inevitable at the start, but opposed when it became a historically ill-informed attempt to create a new state in our own image) have sunk deeper into the national and political psyche than the government realises. And maybe the recent revelations of GCHQ as a willing puppet of the NSA’s Orwellian activities have had an influence too.

We are really not sure under what mandate Great Britain, with sweeping recent cuts to its armed forces, should have a responsibility to police world affairs. The sober answer seems to be that we only police conflicts that affect US national interests.

Libya was an exception – but it’s arguable whether that campaign has not also been a strategic failure: certainly it has not helped the minorities like Christians any more than the Iraqi or Afghan campaigns have.

Supporters of military intervention speak of the “will of the international community” being frustrated by parliament’s rejection of air strikes – but if there really was such a will, our absence on this occasion shouldn’t make much difference to the whole world’s united efforts … oh, I forgot, it looks like the international community’s will is also being frustrated by its own organ, the United Nations, which is why we want to ignore it.

A spokesman in the US said that this move is likely to have serious effects on the “special relationship” between Britain and the US. If that means genuine consultation between friends rather than always dancing to Washington’s tune it will be a good thing. If parliament had had the information, and the will, to say “No” to the invasion of Iraq under Tony Blair’s duplicitous leadership, the wolrd might have been a better place now, and the US more respected. Only autocrats and dictators need yes-men.

Jon Garvey

About Jon Garvey

Training in medicine (which was my career), social psychology and theology. Interests in most things, but especially the science-faith interface. The rest of my time, though, is spent writing, playing and recording music.
This entry was posted in Politics and sociology. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to War postponed

  1. There are no easy answers. I am reminded, however, of the answer Jesus gave to the question, “Who is my neighbour?” Are we crossing to the other side of the road by not seeking to prevent further such atrocities? Or is tendering humanitarian aid where possible sufficient to calm our consciences?

    My wife provoked a discussion by asking, “What’s so different about chemical weapons?” Good question. They result in horrible injuries, horrible deaths, can cause accidental ‘collateral damage’ and, worse, can be deliberately targeted at civilians. So can incendiary devices. So can every kind of ‘conventional’ weapon. My answer to the question is, “Apart from their mode of action, they’re not so very different at all”.

    Yes, Assad and his cronies are wicked people, but we, as a country have needlessly maimed and killed countless civilians with conventional weapons and would, if push came to shove, use nuclear weapons.
    We can hardly claim the moral high ground.

  2. Jon Garvey Jon Garvey says:

    You’re not wrong about easy answers, Peter. But there’s a difference between an adult breaking up fight between two small children and the same adult weighing into a brawl he doesn’t fully understand.

    I wonder how one would feel if someone like the Pope had decided the atrocities in the English civil war needed to be stopped by outside forces – without sorting out its own burning of heretics first. After all, isn’t it a war crime to torture prisoners or leave them in prison without trial?

Comments are closed.