Syria. Don't go there. Twiga has been amongst many saying that from the start. We are in good company. Clearly President Obama has believed the same. No doubt he refers to us every day.
The stirrings in Whitehall , especially recent ones, have been disturbingly at variance with this advice. It's all too tempting when hubris is beginning to set in. It was both the actuality and symptom of that state of mind when Blair decided to foresake his whole legacy (that's different,- a lot different,- from what he will be leaving in his will) of reforming the Labour Party, establishing a new party in the true centre of British politics and reforming all the state establishments which so badly needed it in favour of a military adventure in Iraq. OK, he was also mesmerised by the attraction of being seen standing shoulder to shoulder with George Bush at his hands-thrust- in-jeans macho best, but he'd probably have gone Saddam hunting even without that. The vision of emerging as a great war hero as Thatcher did from the Falklands was just too irresistable.
Is the same thing now happening in Downing Street and across the road in William Hague's office even if not universally in all points in between? This week Dave has said that he didn't see the conflict just in religious terms but more broadly as between the regime and a number of rebel groups who were really just seeking more democracy and some of whom were nice enough to help with a few purely humanitarian shipments of arms (only to be used by good people,- promise) to add to the multitudes already there. He is worried at standing and being seen to do nothing while "another Bosnia " develops, but while the atrocities in Syria are as bad or worse, and in this instance on both sides , the two situations are very different.
There was a chance of a successful military intervention in Bosnia because there were clearly identifiable sides, one of which could be deemed "good" and the other "bad". Easy, - just line up with the "good" one , pour in professional, well organised and well equipped top quality military forces, separate the two warring parties and a visible success,- and some sort of democracy even,- was possible.
Syria is very different. Certainly there are some "good" people on the rebel side but the factions are very diverse and many are far from democracy-driven and , given power, would rule no less ferociously or less anti-western than Assad. Even a coalition between the various factions would be unlikely to hold beyond sitting together for a few minutes.That over, once they started slugging it out there is no knowing in whose hands those generously and well meaningly handed out arms would end up and what they would be used to do. Actually sending in the (British) army to separate the warring factions and protect the desparately suffering non combatants who just want to live in peace would probably only see all the factions and Assad's forces turn, temporarily with an identical purpose, to drive them out. Serious numbers of casualties would be inevitable and a lasting solution even further away.
This one has to be solved in and by the Arab world.That means the Levantine states, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and those of the North African coast. Together they have have the added complications of the non-Arab Iran with its own ambitions and the need to find some sort of accomodation with Israel which even the Israelis themselves dont make easy thanks to their penchant of building settlements inside where any eventual viable Palestinain state would be. Outside help with diplomacy and mediation may be needed and appreciated, but only when asked for rather than imposed. While the west continues its eternal meddling and ill judged and largely unsuccessful interventions there is no pressure on the Arab nations to seriously get together and work out their destiny. It's been like that for more than a century. Time for a change and that's where, by standing aside, however ghastly the immediate nightly TV pictures and shrill "we must do something" calls for "action" the west, can push them.
Right now the supply of humanitarian food and medical supplies to the benighted non combatants who just want the fighting to stop is absolutely essential and justified in anybody's terms. Cameron and Hague's mission should be to deliver that. A pound spent on these supplies is much better value than one spent on bullets. The duo should not be tempted to ride into town in a thunder of hooves as conquering sheriffs, swagger down the deserted main street, hands ready to draw the six shooters (or even Blair-like thrust into tops of pale washed jeans) to heroically restore law and order. Even in American history not all of those heroics and the rest ended in a glorious sunset with the baddies lying all over the ground. Life just wasn't and isn't like that. Far from it. Many sheriffs had their badges removed posthumously as they lay riddled with bullets generously supplied from all directions by all the town's factions in a rare moment of unity. That isn't a good way to go Dave and William (The new Wild Bill?).
The stirrings in Whitehall , especially recent ones, have been disturbingly at variance with this advice. It's all too tempting when hubris is beginning to set in. It was both the actuality and symptom of that state of mind when Blair decided to foresake his whole legacy (that's different,- a lot different,- from what he will be leaving in his will) of reforming the Labour Party, establishing a new party in the true centre of British politics and reforming all the state establishments which so badly needed it in favour of a military adventure in Iraq. OK, he was also mesmerised by the attraction of being seen standing shoulder to shoulder with George Bush at his hands-thrust- in-jeans macho best, but he'd probably have gone Saddam hunting even without that. The vision of emerging as a great war hero as Thatcher did from the Falklands was just too irresistable.
Is the same thing now happening in Downing Street and across the road in William Hague's office even if not universally in all points in between? This week Dave has said that he didn't see the conflict just in religious terms but more broadly as between the regime and a number of rebel groups who were really just seeking more democracy and some of whom were nice enough to help with a few purely humanitarian shipments of arms (only to be used by good people,- promise) to add to the multitudes already there. He is worried at standing and being seen to do nothing while "another Bosnia " develops, but while the atrocities in Syria are as bad or worse, and in this instance on both sides , the two situations are very different.
There was a chance of a successful military intervention in Bosnia because there were clearly identifiable sides, one of which could be deemed "good" and the other "bad". Easy, - just line up with the "good" one , pour in professional, well organised and well equipped top quality military forces, separate the two warring parties and a visible success,- and some sort of democracy even,- was possible.
Syria is very different. Certainly there are some "good" people on the rebel side but the factions are very diverse and many are far from democracy-driven and , given power, would rule no less ferociously or less anti-western than Assad. Even a coalition between the various factions would be unlikely to hold beyond sitting together for a few minutes.That over, once they started slugging it out there is no knowing in whose hands those generously and well meaningly handed out arms would end up and what they would be used to do. Actually sending in the (British) army to separate the warring factions and protect the desparately suffering non combatants who just want to live in peace would probably only see all the factions and Assad's forces turn, temporarily with an identical purpose, to drive them out. Serious numbers of casualties would be inevitable and a lasting solution even further away.
This one has to be solved in and by the Arab world.That means the Levantine states, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and those of the North African coast. Together they have have the added complications of the non-Arab Iran with its own ambitions and the need to find some sort of accomodation with Israel which even the Israelis themselves dont make easy thanks to their penchant of building settlements inside where any eventual viable Palestinain state would be. Outside help with diplomacy and mediation may be needed and appreciated, but only when asked for rather than imposed. While the west continues its eternal meddling and ill judged and largely unsuccessful interventions there is no pressure on the Arab nations to seriously get together and work out their destiny. It's been like that for more than a century. Time for a change and that's where, by standing aside, however ghastly the immediate nightly TV pictures and shrill "we must do something" calls for "action" the west, can push them.
Right now the supply of humanitarian food and medical supplies to the benighted non combatants who just want the fighting to stop is absolutely essential and justified in anybody's terms. Cameron and Hague's mission should be to deliver that. A pound spent on these supplies is much better value than one spent on bullets. The duo should not be tempted to ride into town in a thunder of hooves as conquering sheriffs, swagger down the deserted main street, hands ready to draw the six shooters (or even Blair-like thrust into tops of pale washed jeans) to heroically restore law and order. Even in American history not all of those heroics and the rest ended in a glorious sunset with the baddies lying all over the ground. Life just wasn't and isn't like that. Far from it. Many sheriffs had their badges removed posthumously as they lay riddled with bullets generously supplied from all directions by all the town's factions in a rare moment of unity. That isn't a good way to go Dave and William (The new Wild Bill?).
