I cannot understand how David Cameron thought it wise to recall Parliament to consider some sort of limited military action against Syria before the United Nations experts had reported on their findings. Whilst it seems highly likely that the Assad Regime were responsible for this abhorrent attack it has yet to be proven. It must come as no surprise that action against Syria was rejected.
Now, President Obama has decided to ask Congress to approve military action and this will now wait until Congress reconvenes on 9th September. It seems unlikely that reports on the UN investigation will be ready by then. I think any military action by the USA and it’s allies will make the situation worse and could lead to the whole of the Middle East erupting in war. Iran is already threatening to bomb Israel.
I suspect I, and many others, are suspicious of the reports issued by the British and USA Governments about Syria after the lies we were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Are we being fed similar fairy stories? Sadly it is the innocent of Syria who are suffering as a result of this civil war but the problem is that neither we nor the United States has any mandate to act as the police force of the world; that is the role of the United Nations and any action should be through them.
I think that the evidence that chemical weapons were used is incontrovertible. But I am still not certain about the perpetrator. Of course at first glance it seems like Assad might be behind it: he is, after all, an evil despot. But consider:
ReplyDeleteAssad's forces were slowly but surely overwhelming the rebels in Damascus already. There were already UN inspectors hovering nearby. Assad had been told by the US that there would be "severe consequences" in the event of the government forces using chemical weapons. Assad, above all, wishes to avoid any further foreign agencies coming to the aid of the rebels.
The rebels, on the other hand, have long been pressing for more foreign aid to topple the Assad government. There is some evidence to suggest that the rebels either have, or at least have the possibility to obtain, small amounts of chemicals used as weapons.
With this in mind, which side is more likely to commit an act of such atrocity that it almost guarantees an external response of some form or other?