The Fear
A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
What do people think of the idea of bombing?
Seems indiscriminate to me, I'd have thought boots on the ground (with all nations involved) is the only way to sort this?
Interesting post from an MP:
Clive Lewis MP
12 hrs · Edited ·
A Statement on the Possible Parliamentary Vote to Extend UK Military Operations to Syria
Dear Friend,
As you be aware the Prime Minister has, this week, set out his case for UK forces to engage in a bombing campaign of ISIL/ISIS in Syria.
Technically the PM could use the royal prerogative and authorise air-strikes without Parliament’s approval. However, the past ten years has seen a strengthening of the political convention that, quite rightly, gives Parliament a non-binding but still crucial say in initiating armed conflict.
If, as expected, the Prime Minister seeks a vote in Parliament next week calling for air-strikes in Syria I, like many other MPs, will be asked to make the gravest of decisions.
I know that if I vote to allow air-strikes in Syria it is almost inevitable that innocent women and children, alive now as I write this message, maybe dead within days of that decision. Even with the UK’s ‘precision bombing’ capabilities, this is inevitable.
Many have said the ‘first duty’ of a government is to protect and defend its own citizens. I agree with this entirely. However, I believe this must be balanced by two other considerations.
1. The long-term implications of any action that may ultimately undermine this ‘first duty’.
2. The moral necessity to value all human life, irrelevant of nationality.
For the record, I am not a pacifist. I respect deeply those that are, but can not say it is a philosophy I can adhere to.
Having served in Afghanistan I have seen and experienced warfare, first-hand. I understand there are occasions when military force is necessary. Therefore, I will not rule out supporting the use of military force against ISIL. However, the use of such force must not be an end in itself.
If there is one thing the ‘war on terror’ has shown, it is that military force alone is rarely the answer. We’ve been engaged in this ‘war’ for 15 years with with no end in sight. It has cost millions of lives, trillions of dollars, destabilised an entire region and arguably spawned a series of global, jihadist terror networks.
It was Einstein who said the definition of insanity 'Is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results'. After 15 years of ‘war’ perhaps now is the time to rethink our strategy.
As such, I greatly valued the five ‘areas of risk’, as set out by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, that provided a well rounded, rational, pre-requisite set conditions for extending the bombing of ISIL to Syria. I also appreciate the Prime Minister’s attempt this week to answer those conditions before the House.
It is my opinion, after careful consideration of his case and taking into account the other personal considerations mentioned above, that the Prime Minister has failed to answer those conditions.
Two key issues particularly confound me.
1. The glaring omission of almost any credible, military plan for regional ground-forces to capitalize on these air-strikes. Simply put Syria is a mess. The 70,000 Free Syrian Army troops the Prime Minister mentioned, even if they exist – and these numbers are highly questionable – are not a plausible force as currently configured. It would mean two disparate forces, separated by hundreds of miles, would need to desist from defending their homes and travel through Assad/jihadist held territory under air attack from Russia. Once there they would need to coordinate their ground campaign with Kurdish fighters, who themselves are being bombed by Turkey – our NATO ally.
2. A credible political solution. By refusing to rule out dealing with Assad – a butcher that has killed ten times the number of people that ISIL has – the Prime Minister has made a political solution almost impossible. With Russia and Iran supporting him, Assad is going nowhere for now. The unpalatable truth is that some unsavoury political elements may have to be dealt with if defeating ISIL is considered our main effort. Not acknowledging this reality is a serious hindrance for any credible, long-term strategy.
Failure in these two areas alone means the Prime Minister’s plan has no discernable exit strategy. Add in the fact ISIL wants western military engagement for its own recruitment purposes (both in Syria/Iraq and of the European ‘home-grown variety’) and you begin to see how the cycle of violence for the failed ‘war on terror’ begins yet again.
Ultimately, I believe a true friend and ally must sometimes tell its friends hard-truths. France and the US are mistaken in their overtly military approach. With the downing of the Russian jet last week, this conflict is now a potential super-power flash-point.
The world has failed the Syrian people. We must not compound that failure by deepening the conflict and prolonging the war. Only a political solution will de-escalate this situation, end the civil war, allow for the defeat of ISIL and begin the process of tackling the wider causes of jihadist terroism.
(Please send me your views on this issue as I would appreciate a feel for your own observations and thoughts.)
Regards,
Clive Lewis MP
Norwich South
Seems indiscriminate to me, I'd have thought boots on the ground (with all nations involved) is the only way to sort this?
Interesting post from an MP:
Clive Lewis MP
12 hrs · Edited ·
A Statement on the Possible Parliamentary Vote to Extend UK Military Operations to Syria
Dear Friend,
As you be aware the Prime Minister has, this week, set out his case for UK forces to engage in a bombing campaign of ISIL/ISIS in Syria.
Technically the PM could use the royal prerogative and authorise air-strikes without Parliament’s approval. However, the past ten years has seen a strengthening of the political convention that, quite rightly, gives Parliament a non-binding but still crucial say in initiating armed conflict.
If, as expected, the Prime Minister seeks a vote in Parliament next week calling for air-strikes in Syria I, like many other MPs, will be asked to make the gravest of decisions.
I know that if I vote to allow air-strikes in Syria it is almost inevitable that innocent women and children, alive now as I write this message, maybe dead within days of that decision. Even with the UK’s ‘precision bombing’ capabilities, this is inevitable.
Many have said the ‘first duty’ of a government is to protect and defend its own citizens. I agree with this entirely. However, I believe this must be balanced by two other considerations.
1. The long-term implications of any action that may ultimately undermine this ‘first duty’.
2. The moral necessity to value all human life, irrelevant of nationality.
For the record, I am not a pacifist. I respect deeply those that are, but can not say it is a philosophy I can adhere to.
Having served in Afghanistan I have seen and experienced warfare, first-hand. I understand there are occasions when military force is necessary. Therefore, I will not rule out supporting the use of military force against ISIL. However, the use of such force must not be an end in itself.
If there is one thing the ‘war on terror’ has shown, it is that military force alone is rarely the answer. We’ve been engaged in this ‘war’ for 15 years with with no end in sight. It has cost millions of lives, trillions of dollars, destabilised an entire region and arguably spawned a series of global, jihadist terror networks.
It was Einstein who said the definition of insanity 'Is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results'. After 15 years of ‘war’ perhaps now is the time to rethink our strategy.
As such, I greatly valued the five ‘areas of risk’, as set out by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, that provided a well rounded, rational, pre-requisite set conditions for extending the bombing of ISIL to Syria. I also appreciate the Prime Minister’s attempt this week to answer those conditions before the House.
It is my opinion, after careful consideration of his case and taking into account the other personal considerations mentioned above, that the Prime Minister has failed to answer those conditions.
Two key issues particularly confound me.
1. The glaring omission of almost any credible, military plan for regional ground-forces to capitalize on these air-strikes. Simply put Syria is a mess. The 70,000 Free Syrian Army troops the Prime Minister mentioned, even if they exist – and these numbers are highly questionable – are not a plausible force as currently configured. It would mean two disparate forces, separated by hundreds of miles, would need to desist from defending their homes and travel through Assad/jihadist held territory under air attack from Russia. Once there they would need to coordinate their ground campaign with Kurdish fighters, who themselves are being bombed by Turkey – our NATO ally.
2. A credible political solution. By refusing to rule out dealing with Assad – a butcher that has killed ten times the number of people that ISIL has – the Prime Minister has made a political solution almost impossible. With Russia and Iran supporting him, Assad is going nowhere for now. The unpalatable truth is that some unsavoury political elements may have to be dealt with if defeating ISIL is considered our main effort. Not acknowledging this reality is a serious hindrance for any credible, long-term strategy.
Failure in these two areas alone means the Prime Minister’s plan has no discernable exit strategy. Add in the fact ISIL wants western military engagement for its own recruitment purposes (both in Syria/Iraq and of the European ‘home-grown variety’) and you begin to see how the cycle of violence for the failed ‘war on terror’ begins yet again.
Ultimately, I believe a true friend and ally must sometimes tell its friends hard-truths. France and the US are mistaken in their overtly military approach. With the downing of the Russian jet last week, this conflict is now a potential super-power flash-point.
The world has failed the Syrian people. We must not compound that failure by deepening the conflict and prolonging the war. Only a political solution will de-escalate this situation, end the civil war, allow for the defeat of ISIL and begin the process of tackling the wider causes of jihadist terroism.
(Please send me your views on this issue as I would appreciate a feel for your own observations and thoughts.)
Regards,
Clive Lewis MP
Norwich South
