I’m still not convinced about the case to bomb Syria. To my mind, David Cameron’s case is anything but compelling but I suppose I will have to actually listen to the parliamentary debate next week to see if that helps. I am not convinced it will provide me with any further clarity. I am not certain action is legal since Cameron won’t show us the advice, I am not sure what is supposed to achieve short term or long term, I don’t know what the exit strategy is supposed to be; I have grave doubts. But after hearing Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell on TV and radio this morning, I have probably have even less idea, but I am leaning more and more against the idea of bombing. No thanks to those two.
It seems to come down to this: do something, anything, or do nothing. The former seems to be Cameron’s “strategy” such as it is. Raqqa is the home of ISIS so we must join in with our allies and bomb the terrorists. The latter is undoubtedly to do nothing, ever. Not for the first time in my life, I am some near the middle, albeit with a hardening opinion.
I’m more inclined to support a campaign in Syria than I was with Iraq, or rather less disinclined. But I don’t feel informed enough to take a strong view. I’ll bet I’m not alone.
McDonnell was too busy making more “jokes” about Mao on Peinaar’s politics on 5 Live, as well as his tedious “new politics” soundbite, used as extensively as the Tories’ “long term economic plan” and equally meaningless to say anything coherent about Syria. McDonnell’s “new politics” was the old politics of slippery evasion, pretending that he did not know what Corbyn would finally decide in terms of whether Labour MPs should be whipped to oppose attacks in Syria or not. Far more interestingly, he was very clear that the matter should be a matter of conscience by way of a Commons free vote, the opposite of what Corbyn has said to date. Funny how Hilary Benn was criticised by the hard left for giving his personal view that he felt Cameron had given a “compelling case” for action when the Labour Party had not made up its collective mind but it’s okay for McDonnell to do the same.
If Corbyn says we should not take military action, then what’s his alternative? He fears civilian casualties and yet 250,000 have already died in Syria and millions more are on the move. Should Labour’s leader, as Andrew Rawnsley suggested last week, get himself parachuted into Raqqa to perform citizen’s arrests of ISIS murderers instead of taking them out?
There is a clear vacuum of leadership from both political wings in our politics. In the absence of leadership, I draw my own conclusions and they include boots on the ground, something rejected by both sides. Not a 2003 style western invasion, but – and this is back-of-a-fag-packet calculation – a Syrian led ground force, backed by the UN. I simply cannot believe that bombs alone will make things better and perhaps they will make things even worse. We are up against the hydra. Every bomb could well generate another jihadist, maybe a whole bunch of them.
So, it’s probably no to bombing on the basis of what little I understand. I remain open to persuasion if anyone is capable of persuading but so far no one has been.
