The prime minister is expected soon to call for parliamentary authority in order to join the bombing of ISIS targets in Syria. In 2013, I was against Cameron’s plans for UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to deter the use of chemical weapons. So was the House of Commons and like opposition MPs, I was not persuaded by the arguments. Now the government wants to join in the bombing of one of the other groups in Syria. It will be interesting to see what Cameron has to say this time.
The PM will, presumably say that this is different from 2013, that we cannot stand on the sidelines whilst the islamic fascists plunder their way through Syria. What he will need to do is show us what any attacks would seek to achieve and, more importantly, whether they have any possibility of succeeding. I am naturally wary of our military trips abroad, not least because of the lessons of recent history. It is not easy to suggest that an awful lot of servicemen and women died for reasons that were not entirely clear in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Does anyone think these missions were truly successful? What, Cameron needs to say, will be different about Syria?
I would guess that the west will argue for a no fly zone and to stop the expansion of ISIS. If these are at least part of the aims, then please tell us. Not all of us have already made up our minds.
But in asking the government to justify military intervention is one thing, but will the opposition have to say? This is important too because the opposition, in the form of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, has to be clear why he would not support armed intervention and what instead he would do. It would not be good enough for Corbyn to merely dismiss the idea of military action, but in saying we should do nothing would surely be a criminal political (lack of) act. The islamic fascist thugs of ISIS are carrying out acts of depravity we have rarely seen. Random beheadings, throwing alleged gays from high buildings, rape, slavery, torture to name but a few horror stories. If military action will not work, or if Corbyn simply does not believe in it, then what, specifically, would he do? This matters. The Labour leader presumably has eyes on 10 Downing Street, laughable as that seems to many of us, so how does he propose to end the ISIS reign of terror? He may say, like Cameron once did, that you cannot bomb your way to peace, but then what will bring peace?
Cameron, like him or not, will come to the Commons with a plan. He will need to be specific about the plan and the country will need to come to a view about it. He will say, fairly, that something needs to be done to stop the humanitarian crisis resulting from the vile acts of ISIS, as people flock to leave their country for safety. The migration crisis is as a direct result of the conflict. Cameron knows, as do there rest of us, that what happens in Syria affects us and the rest of Europe in one way or another. What to do?
So, that is what I would ask Corbyn? If you do not agree with military action on Syria, what should we do instead? Negotiate with murderers and rapists on the basis of what? Or just look the other way.
Throughout his life, Corbyn has spoken only from the comfort of opposition, speaking and listening to those who agree with him. Now, as leader of the opposition, he has a choice. He can lead or he can stand aside and allow others to make decisions, only to criticise them at a later date. Marching and protest meetings have their place in a democratic country but Labour’s new leader must now offer a little more than that.
If not military action, Jeremy, then what? He must be asked what he would do instead, just as Cameron should be challenged as to why he favours military action and, more importantly, what he seeks to achieve by way of it. It’s called leadership, something Corbyn is not used to, but he needs to learn and fast.
