Syria: What are we doing?

Posturing is what we're doing. Only it is a very dangerous game we're playing given that Russia and China are opposing what we're planning to do in Syria.

And what are we planning to do? Send a few cruise missiles in to knock out a few bits of military infrastructure. Will it change anything? Will it bring peace and democracy to that country? Or, by weakening the government side (which was winning it's own civil war) will we merely be prolonging the war and thereby increasing the suffering of its people for longer?

And who are we supporting here? Assad is a mass-murdering fuckhead - but it sometimes seems to me that this is the only way to exert any kind of control over people who view the next life as much more important than this one and who see their religious affiliations as being much more important than being loyal to the state or country in which they live.

So in Syria we're proposing to support the rebels within whose disparate group is Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. That seems strange given that we've been fighting Al Qaeda since before 911 and that we're supporting Egypt's attempts to kick out the Muslim extremists in the brotherhood from their country. And these rebels who we're proposing to support have been 'cleansing' Christian villages; they beheaded Catholic Priest Francois Murad (below left) two weeks ago. Are we sure we should be supporting this kind of extremist anti-Christian group?

I get the impression that the Yanks are really unsure about who they should be supporting in this. Their ideological stance ought to be to support Assad against the terrorists. And if they support the rebels it is much more likely that we will be creating a much bigger problem for ourselves in the future. If these idiots weren't so hell-bent on killing each other in Syria right now, they'd be plotting attacks on the West. But Nobel Peace Prize-winning Obama has painted himself into a corner with his 'red line' bollocks so he now needs to act in order to maintain his ego and his credibility.

This is worth a watch in my view - General Wesley Clark talking about US foreign policy post 9/11: 'If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail'. 

So our 'principled' approach is to retaliate because chemical weapons were used. If both sides stick to using bullets that's fine. What kind of a fucked up world are we living in that this becomes a principle?

'We don't care if you kill hundreds of thousands of your own people with bullets, but get the chemistry set out and we'll bomb you (and them, your citizens) into submission.' Yeah that'll work; well done all you Pentagon strategists.

This 'red line' thing is also interesting given that both sides obviously knew what it meant: I'm struggling to understand why Assad would use chemical weapons given that he was winning, when he knew it would bring the world's biggest military machine into the frame against him?

Surely it would be more in the interests of the 'rebels' to get chemical weapons into the theatre of battle? To stage something to that effect. We're told that Assad has the weapons (supplied by whom, we don't know) and that the rebels don't so that's your proof. But do you really think that Al Qaeda is above staging something like this? That Israel (who are gunning for Assad) might not help them to fabricate something along these lines?

If I was a rebel and knew that by doing so I'd get the might of the US on my side, I think I'd have a go at doing something like this.

But we don't know for sure. Let me just repeat that: we don't know for sure.

Either way.

Yet we're planning to bomb a country that poses no 'clear and present danger' to the West, on the basis of conjecture and probability? With no clear military objectives? With absolutely no chance of establishing democracy or the rule of law through our actions? In order to do that we'd have to commit troops on the ground and effectively take over the country and impose our laws and values on them. That's never going to happen. It didn't in Afghanistan nor in Iraq where a decade of fighting has resulted in almost no progress for ordinary people's safety, rights, laws. Women are still second class citizens in those countries and it's cost us $billions and hundreds of British and American lives.

And what of Russia and China's response? Russia will replace all and any infrastructure that our Tomahawks destroy. In a heartbeat. China will, one day soon, call in its growing ownership of the US in terms of its (the US's) indebtedness to China. Not a good enemy to be making right now.

And what of our own 'National interest'? Is Syria a threat to the UK? Does it threaten us? Even Alistair Campbell would struggle to spin that as a real issue.

And yet, and yet. We have religious unrest emerging across the globe, in Sweden, Europe more widely, Brazil, Australia, Russia (Chechnya) and many others. And we're proposing to support Muslim extremist rebels in Syria? Are we sure about this?

Breaking: The Commons has just defeated the 'go to war' vote. Thank Goodness. Not sure it will change much, but I hope it does stop this madness.It certainly makes Cameron and in particular Hague look pretty idiotic. Good.

Thanks for reading.