The headline will come as no surprise to some of you who will know I have been arguing for intervention in Syria since shortly after the civil war there kicked off in 2011. I saw early on the dangers of an unstoppable, sectarian war in Syria, and although I obviously can’t claim to have foreseen something as horrific as ISIS arising, I can’t say its emergence came as a huge surprise to me.
What has come a pleasant surprise to me has been the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, deciding to have the eight Lib Dem MPs vote for airstrikes (although two of them defied the whip in the end, one of them unexpectedly). This would have been hard for any Lib Dem leader to do post-Iraq, so I applaud the brave decision. While I agree with Tim and the position, I would like to spend the rest of this article explaining why that is in detail, using arguments against them as structure:
1. The argument against any western intervention, ever
This strikes me as the weakest possible reason for being against intervention in Syria – and yet it seems the most prevalent amongst those on the left of British politics. While a great deal of western intervention in other parts of the world in the past twenty-five years has indeed been unfortunate, usually through being poorly thought out as opposed to being imperialistically driven I would argue, that does not mean it is by definition a bad thing. As Tim Farron rightly says, “this is not Iraq”. The chief way this conflict and our involvement in it is not like Iraq (and I’ve said this many times, so forgive me for boring you with it again) is that there was no war in Iraq when we marched in, thereby starting a war when we did; whereas there is already a war in Syria, one that we are trying to bring a halt to.
2. Airstrikes alone are not enough to bring an end to the Syrian conflict
This one is much more considerate. I haven’t seen every detail of Cameron’s plan, but given Tim has and felt it was coherent enough to back the airstrikes, I have to give him benefit of the doubt. Yes, airstrikes will not be enough to end the Syrian civil war. Yes, destroying ISIS but leaving a vacuum in the middle of the Levant for some other, similar organisation to flourish is a big problem unless the whole of Syria is figured out. But I have begun to wonder what sort of country we’re living in now where we have a Tory prime minister arguing that the FSA is a group worth backing, and that with the Kurds as well and a little western help the mess could probably be sorted out – while we have the left of British politics declaring that the FSA is essentially a figment of his imagination. I truly despair that this is where we are.
3. You agree with the aims of ISIS
4. As an isolationist, you believe whatever happens in the Middle East isn’t our problem – so getting militarily involved there or taking in their refugees is a mistake
I wanted to think of another reason why people tend to go against the idea of the airstrikes, but that’s really all I can think of. The second objection is worth debating. It’s a shame for Jeremy Corbyn that he didn’t try it on his party instead of using the first objection – he may have achieved his goal of stopping the strikes.
I think you are missing the post-Iraq, post-afghanistan, post-Libya feeling of distate for our most common weapon: the feeling that airstrikes and drone attacks will always hurt civilians alongside enemy combatants, turning local populations against the perceived aggressors, and that therefore, statements made about their ‘accuracy’ are not to be believed, therefore modern warfare is too often a self-defeating tool.
Another reason is some believe that the air strikes will be counter productive. ISIS may be able to use it to recruit others to its cause. Especially if we start killing civilians. They’ll use the line of another Western attack of a Muslim country. Could be very effective. Especially considering our unhelpful influence in these countries for the past few centuries. Their argument will be the West is either invading us or propping up dictators. Neither of which is completely wrong.
Nick, you kept us waiting in suspense for your take on Lib Dem position on air strikes in Syria. Then lo and behold ‘the mountain went into labour, and after several weeks of groaning produced a mouse’.
Your response is very incoherent and shows boredom, lack of interest and lack of understanding of the Middle East, its problems and particularly the current conflict.
Just because Tim Farron supported air strikes then the intelligence, the plan and the strikes must be right! This is a lazy way to debate a very serious issue. I believe that you are not well informed to make a decision in this debate so a little bit of research would definitely help you to understand the situation better.
I will claim to know about the Middle East a little bit more having lived there the best part of my life. I would be very happy to debate with you but the space and your format wouldn’t allow it so I will leave it there.
.
The fact that we’re having to fight alongside “allies” that, inasmuch as they exist, are pretty revolting people themselves. They’re called “moderate”, they’re only thus inasmuch as they’re not Islamic State.
You can say that Assad is as bad as Saddam Hussein, you can also say that neither is as bad as what’s likely to come after. Shameron hasn’t thought it through, giving careful consideration things is generally not his strong point. And tbh it really boiled my piss when he said his opponents are terrorist sympathisers. What is our “ally” Saudi Arabia doing in Yemen if not terrorism? What about Turkish revanchism in the region? Do Shameron and Hammond-Organ even care?
I appreciate you support this because you want to crush Islamic State, but you’re not going to do that by excluding the entire Assad team the way the neocons did in Iraq, and I really think it’s wishful thinking that these “moderates” are going to just mosey on up to whatever warzone it is and beat Islamic State just like that. The Kurds actually are moderate, but understandably focus on their own region and are mutually suspicious of Arabs.
It’s not about ends, despite that shameful man’s attempt to say it is, it’s about means. I am laying out why I don’t think it’s going to work, I hope to be proven wrong but I just don’t think enough thought has gone into it.
Great analysis Nick & I agree with your conclusion. Very disappointed and somewhat shocked that some Lib Dem members were calling for Tim’s resignation on Tuesday & Wednesday night on social media. He made a big brave call which he was fully entitled to make as leader – like yourself I take it on trust Tim has insight into the broader plan beyond air strikes. I fear we’re in the minority though in supporting him on this.
I don’t doubt Tim Farron’s support for bombing Syria came as a surprise to you.
In July he was quite clear that British military action in Syria would play into the terrorists’ hands:
“Their whole message is that it is them against the west. If you want to make them martyrs and play into their hands, you do this.”
On 4 November he was just as clear that air strikes would be harmful:
“Our Prime Minister should take the lead in constructing a lasting peace with a strategy geared towards rebuilding Syria rather than constantly seeking to build a parliamentary majority for counterproductive military action. More and more bombs are not the answer. Adding extra war will simply create a bigger stream of refugees justifiably looking to escape.”
I don’t know whether he’s completely reversed his position over the last month, or whether he still believes air strikes will help the terrorists but is supporting them for political reasons, or whether he never meant a word of any of it, or what. But I’m starting to think that, by comparison, Tim Farron makes Nick Clegg look principled and consistent.