The pre-weekend confusion has given way to a weekend of pundits and politicians going around in ever decreasing circles trying to find angles, horrors and all the things that make good stories. Despite a lot of hype, few are being successful.
Many are tediously looking for "What this means for Cameron", or "What this means for Miliband" rather than what the rather confused scene now means to the Syrians, global politics and what happens next. Domestic political advantage is sought above all else. Did Miliband land a killer blow (almost by mistake) by his duplicity or has he made himself a pressure plate landmine? Probably neither. Politics move on fast and all this, like Syria itself if we are not careful, will soon be buried in sand, only of course to be tediously dragged up again for the next General Election's "Yah Boo,- Yes you did" ,"No I didn't" sessions.
Meanwhile across the Atlantic, Obama, seemingly poised and ready to press the start button, turned the safety key by backing off and refering the "Go, no go" question to a highly unpredictable Congress who, unlike the British Parliament recalled early, do not return from their hols until next week. Surely the possibility of the US missiles being joined by one or two from France wasn't that bad a deterrent? Maybe he did think Cameron had adopted a game changing recipe good for democracy or maybe he just wanted more time to see what the UN investigators and anyone else had actually found out about the chain of command which unleashed the chemical attack in Syria. It would be very embarrasssing if it were found to be a renegade army group without Assad's backing, however unlikely that may seem.
A week or so from now Obama will have Congress's verdict. Like Cameron, that does not stop him going ahead with a punitive attack if he decides to do so. At the moment the odds look as if he just might. Certainly Kerry's rhetoric would point that way.
Restoring some kind of sanity to the whole issue is essential. Throwing more weapons about, blowing up more people, buildings and infrastructure only means more recriminations and expensive reconstruction later. Bombing a country backwards in time makes no sense. Long term peace requires prosperity not poverty. It needs fully functioning villages, towns, cities and states. Bombing the place back to where it was years ago is counter productive and socially and politically dangerous. Syria's plea today to the UN for protection against western aggression is understandable even if it is read as purely tactical. It asks the UN a question it is unlikely to want or be able to answer: "Whose side are you on?" With Russia, China. Syria and Iran in one corner and the rest of the world spread around several others a unified response looks impossible. If Assad were to convene a meeting of the warring parties that would be a very smart move and take the wind out of the "Bomb them" sails. On past performance, he is unlikely to see such a move as necessary in a world where political power means winner takes all. It takes a very well entrenched democratic tradition to move on from that notion to the idea that the winner also has a duty to look after all its constituents rather than just the winning faction. After all, we've been in the democracy business for a few hundred years but can't yet claim unfailing and consistent success in this field.
The more one probes into the murky and complex depths of the Syrian crisis, the less clear cut are any of the issues or solutions. Rhetoric, emotional moralising, and militant stances have led us to where we are,- and that is currently a sea of confusion.
More to come..................
Many are tediously looking for "What this means for Cameron", or "What this means for Miliband" rather than what the rather confused scene now means to the Syrians, global politics and what happens next. Domestic political advantage is sought above all else. Did Miliband land a killer blow (almost by mistake) by his duplicity or has he made himself a pressure plate landmine? Probably neither. Politics move on fast and all this, like Syria itself if we are not careful, will soon be buried in sand, only of course to be tediously dragged up again for the next General Election's "Yah Boo,- Yes you did" ,"No I didn't" sessions.
Meanwhile across the Atlantic, Obama, seemingly poised and ready to press the start button, turned the safety key by backing off and refering the "Go, no go" question to a highly unpredictable Congress who, unlike the British Parliament recalled early, do not return from their hols until next week. Surely the possibility of the US missiles being joined by one or two from France wasn't that bad a deterrent? Maybe he did think Cameron had adopted a game changing recipe good for democracy or maybe he just wanted more time to see what the UN investigators and anyone else had actually found out about the chain of command which unleashed the chemical attack in Syria. It would be very embarrasssing if it were found to be a renegade army group without Assad's backing, however unlikely that may seem.
A week or so from now Obama will have Congress's verdict. Like Cameron, that does not stop him going ahead with a punitive attack if he decides to do so. At the moment the odds look as if he just might. Certainly Kerry's rhetoric would point that way.
Restoring some kind of sanity to the whole issue is essential. Throwing more weapons about, blowing up more people, buildings and infrastructure only means more recriminations and expensive reconstruction later. Bombing a country backwards in time makes no sense. Long term peace requires prosperity not poverty. It needs fully functioning villages, towns, cities and states. Bombing the place back to where it was years ago is counter productive and socially and politically dangerous. Syria's plea today to the UN for protection against western aggression is understandable even if it is read as purely tactical. It asks the UN a question it is unlikely to want or be able to answer: "Whose side are you on?" With Russia, China. Syria and Iran in one corner and the rest of the world spread around several others a unified response looks impossible. If Assad were to convene a meeting of the warring parties that would be a very smart move and take the wind out of the "Bomb them" sails. On past performance, he is unlikely to see such a move as necessary in a world where political power means winner takes all. It takes a very well entrenched democratic tradition to move on from that notion to the idea that the winner also has a duty to look after all its constituents rather than just the winning faction. After all, we've been in the democracy business for a few hundred years but can't yet claim unfailing and consistent success in this field.
The more one probes into the murky and complex depths of the Syrian crisis, the less clear cut are any of the issues or solutions. Rhetoric, emotional moralising, and militant stances have led us to where we are,- and that is currently a sea of confusion.
More to come..................
