Politics' sudden explosion into life after a quiet summer and even sillier than usual media silly season continues,- and with it the unfortunate high risk of further explosions in Syria, followed by nobody knows what.
There are two threads here. First the philosophical one of what happens if the leaders of the world's leading democracies are constrained in their defence of the democratic ideal by....democracy. This happened in the Commons debate on Britain joining in a punitive military strike on Syria. It may well happen in the Congressional response on Tuesday to Obama's proposal. What if their answer on behalf of the American people is a also a "No" and the President doesn't override it? Or if he does go ahead, he is successfully impeached later, something that would in reality hobble Presidential freedom of action in the future? We would have the position where the dictators and grossly unpleasant governments of world would have nothing to fear from continuing to behave badly and oppressively and in doing so threaten the peace and good governance of others. How then is freedom defended and how and when could there be intervention to say "Enough is enough"? There are occasions when only force can avoid the continuation or extension of tyranny, but given the reluctance of most democratic electorates to go along with military action how do we ever get to use it before the invasion fleet sets sail across the Channel?
That is the big issue ,- and it is a huge one.
Secondly there is the immediate question of Syria. Obama is straining at the leash to punish someone for the chemical attacks and the resultant 1,400 deaths. Cameron was before he accepted being handcuffed by the Commons reflecting remarkably accurately the feelings of the British people of "This isn't one for us" ,heightened by a lack of clarity about what the desired outcome really was/is.
Obama, surprisingly for a relatively pacifist Democrat, is now out on a limb and may see himself as having to loose off a salvo or several just to avoid being seen as weak. This, meaning action for action's sake, is a dangerous postion for him to be in and isn't healthy for anyone else either.
The proposed attack seems to have grown from being one by a few carefully selected cruise missiles to a much bigger one involving a selection of aircraft including even veteran B52s, a weapons delivery system not known for its pinpoint accurancy. The objective appears to be to try to destroy as much of Assad's military capabilty as possible so as to level the playing field and give a host of disparate and desparate rebel groups a better chance of a rather shambolic and certainly brutal victory. Nobody has any idea of who may eventually come out on top and how or what might follow. Any notions of "moderate" or "liberal" rebels riding in and setting up a Westminster style debating chamber in which the negotiate and settle their differences are pure fantasy. As in Iraq, nasty as the Assad dynasty may have been to some ,regime change of itself is likely to see more dead Syrians than if the status quo had continued. Also as in Iraq, let's not forget that the Ba'ath regime has been secular and that minorities, including Christians, have been protected and lived in peace. That's not going to be the case in any post Assad scenario.
At this stage there is absolutley no clarity about anything if or when the Assad regime is toppled. Nobody, including Obama and Cameron, has declared what the desired future state is or how it might be achieved. All that is on offer is the killing of more Syrians to avenge the loss and manner of death of the 1,400 killed in the chemical attack. It may well be impossible to prove who actually did deploy the chemicals. Although there is a reasonable presumption that government forces were to blame, it isn't proven whether these were mainstream of renegade on a frolic of their own or alternatively whether a rebel group used a conventional attack (which certainly did happen at the time) as a cover for releasing gas in a limited area. Against that background we are not even sure who we are punishing . The only certainty is that, whoever was responsible, we are making life easier for the rebel groups in general.
Are there any definate or near definate outcomes we can see from a) Obama's punitive strike and b) its aftermath? Well yes, there are....
a) From the strike:
- A lot of Syrians will be killed. Most likely that will include non combatants, women and children. Does that help anyone?
- If manned aircraft are deployed, Syria's Russian-supplied defence systems may ensure that they don't all return to base. This isn't a turkey shoot like Libya.
-A once working infrastructure will be further degraded, its eventual reconstruction leaving an economic drag on growth which reduce the funds available for creating a long term more prosperous and more stable society.
b) From the aftermath/regime change.
- The current Middle Eastern ( and sometimes our own) view of democracy is that winner takes all. hence in Egypt, Morsi felt he could run off with the Islamacist ball despite the slimmest of majorities. A military coup followed. Back to square minus a few. Didn't we do well in suppporting/encouraging the Arab Spring?
-The results of winner takes all will include the losers being hit hard/killed . This is one incentive for Assad and his supporters to keep peddling. If they lose they can't look forward to living to a ripe old age in homes for the elderly.
-Assuming Assad loses, that will be the end of the secular state.
-Minorities stuck in the middle will be crushed. Goodbye Christians.
That, in a nutshell or two, is where the world is now and where it will head if Obama presses the "GO" button this week. Beyond these few things , nobody knows where "action" will lead, who will react and how and where that in turn will lead. There is no defined end point or even a vision of one. It's all very interesting but very dangerous. It seems along time since a fortnight ago when the biggest risk of the day was Cameron changing his trunks on a Cornish beach.
