Awol

Peter I don't buy your proposition that there is some level of moral equivalence between drone strikes (counter productive and illegal as they may be) and the large scale use of rape, torture and murder against a civilian population to no end other than sadistic terrorism. I also don't think that the reconciliation processes in either Ulster or South Africa are comparable to the situation in Syria. The only modern point of reference I can think of is Bosnia, and although the numbers of dead in Syria are not as high as that yet, it will almost certainly go that way, or worse. The only thing that stopped the killing there was direct intervention and the realisation in Belgrade that continuing the campaign would mean fighting NATO. The only thing that stopped the problem from re-emerging was physical separation of the populations on the ground. The main problem with the political solution you suggest is its utter rejection by the belligerent parties in the country. The Basel II proposals are dead, there is no political peace process to cling to. The UN are not going to do anything, not because the west is undermining its moral authority but because it has none. The other actors (Saudi and Qatar on one side, Iran and Russia on the other) are not going to be pressured by anyone into disengaging their support for either the Jihadists or Assad. That leaves the only people who want a free and pluralistic society as the only side not being directly supported. Is that sensible?

Against my better judgement I spent 20 minutes yesterday watching a selection of the lovely youtube videos posted by supporters of each side in Syria that highlight each others atrocities. Not the chemical stuff, but the up close and personal, methodical and brutal torture of helpless people. The SAA, FSA and Jihadis are animals all. "Disturbing" isn't an adjective that does the images justice and it's reminiscent of Bosnia, although admittedly what we saw on TV from there was usually the aftermath, rather than the events themselves recorded by laughing psychopaths on 8 megapixel smart phones. The hatred is extraordinary and it feels like you're watching the death of a country, with every ounce of decency and humanity wrung from it by the hands of madmen. The idea of these factions being reconciled is too incredible to contemplate. It's no wonder the world is choosing to turn away and say 'let them get on with it', because to engage with the reality is emotionally overwhelming. I don't blame religion, or the US, Russians or Iranians, no force beyond the will of the individual can compel man to do that to man, or all too frequently, woman and child. All I know is that if evil currently has an address then it's Syria, and for those (myself included) who have suggested that doing nothing is an option, please, spend 20 minutes doing what I did last night. If your conscience still thinks that non-intervention is an option then you're a harder hearted man than I. EDIT: The irony that this puts me in the same camp as St. Tony Blair has not been missed..

Hang on, Iran is fighting inside Syria with its Al Quds forces on the side of those who (are most likely to) have used CW's! How can a direct protagonist in a conflict take up a peacekeeping role and have even the remotest degree of credibility with the other side? EDIT: That's like saying Soviet Russia had a legitimate reason to get involved in the Hungarian uprising because it was defending a political ally - and therefore protecting its own interests.

Obviously don't disagree with you about the carve up of post Ottoman Arabia into artificial states, but Iran (Persia) doesn't fall into that bracket. That doesn't alter the fact that Iran is being proposed in some quarters as a credible partner for peace negotiations, despite the fact they are a boots on the ground combatant in the war!

There is at least logic to that position though. Pick a side and do something. A punitive strike will achieve nothing so if there is to be a response to the CW attacks then it has to be decisive or it is pointless. Just on the point you and others have raised about involving the Iranians in peace negotiations, how can they be more legitimate peace makers than for example the US, when they actually have IRGC fighters on the ground fighting for Assad and officers leading Syrian regular units- leaving aside that their proxies HZ are up to their necks in the fighting and are credited with actually turning the tide against the rebel forces? The Iranians haven't tried to hide the IRGC involvement and have held public funerals for their "martyrs" back home. It does somewhat nullify the logic that that this is all stirred up by the west and if "we" stay out of it at least the Syrians are being left alone to sort out their own problems.

Fair one, sorry! The key is peeling away Russia from Assad and bringing them on side will take patience, creating the perception that their opinion matters by being patient, and by making some large concessions to Russia elsewhere on other issues. Realpolitik. We have time because the Syria problem is going nowhere fast.

Or, there is always this view to fall back on:

In reply to you and the good by post by Peter below yours, I don't know either and haven't seen a public presentation of the evidence the US and ourselves claim to have. Kerry standing at a podium and saying "we know this" simply doesn't cut the mustard post 2003. Maybe that presentation has happened and I missed it, or maybe they are waiting for the UN inspectors report to put it all out together, I don't know. Without the evidence I don't see how military action can be on the table as an option, but once out I don't think there is another country I'd trust to give the "independent verification" of that evidence as Peter is suggesting - not withstanding the fact western intelligence agencies are not going to open up their sourcing and analysis to foreign countries. So it becomes an individual judgement of whether, on balance, it is compelling. It ain't there yet. Where I differ from you and Peter is the belief that this is more likely to be a false flag job. I think it happened and given the volume of casualties over a large area I think there is a very high probability that Assad's forces did it, and although not necessarily ordered by him personally that is moot point once kids start croaking from nerve agent poisoning. To be honest I'm completely torn in that I don't want the UK involved but as a member of the permanent five we do have a responsibility to prevent and deter the use of chemical weapons. International treaties like that which prohibit their use are only meaningful if they are enforced, but does the fact this treaty pre-dates the UN, and the fact Russia and China would never endorse action that could set a precedent against their own potential future domestic behaviour (or retrospective sanction in Russia's case for Chechnya), mean that they as P-5 members should be allowed to veto a response? I don't think it does, necessarily. Why? The key values underpinning liberal democracy only prevail through the potential threat of force to uphold them, or as Frederick the Great said: "Diplomacy without weapons is like music without instruments". The values we hold to be non-negotiable (like not offing people with poison gas) are not the default setting of humanity as history shows, and maintaining their supremacy over dictatorship sometimes requires force and sacrifice. So I think in principle and based on the production of sufficient evidence, there is a case for intervention. The question of why should the US, UK and/or France step up to this and shoulder responsibility is a fairly simple one in my view, leadership.The reason the vote in Parliament mattered internationally is because love us loathe us, what the UK says and does matters. Large parts of the world are yet to catch up to our post imperial, 'woe is us' self perception and similar is true of our garlic chomping neighbours. The US is looked at as a very strong, petulant and flailing child in many parts of the world (particularly where I live) but the same is not true of the UK, which rightly or wrongly is considered to be more fair and moral in its judgement. No one asks "what are the Germans, or the Japanese, or the Brazilians doing about this?" But they do look to Britain. So that, for me, answers the question of 'why us'? However the use of force without clear political goals is totally irresponsible, and what about the law of unintended consequences? A few Tomahawks and Storm Shadows slamming into C2 assets as a punitive response seems pointless, and if intervention is called for (regardless of its trigger) then it should be geared to bring about a decisive result. What if after a bombardment Assad uses CW again? Another wave of bombs? Then another? Once force is used then you have to be in it to win it or you step back and look even more impotent having used force and failed to make a difference. Are we, the US or any other allies prepared to own the problem? Let's say the answer to that is yes and the goal is to remove Assad, replacing him with a secular democratic regime of some type. We know that the diverse opposition contains some well organised and vicious jihadi groups who want a Taliban style regime for the country. The FSA (mainly defectors from the regular army) won't wear that and do want a democratic state, so even if Assad goes you'll have another civil war grinding on and on, supported on the beardy side by Saudi and Qatari money and with the Iranians looking to destabilise whoever gets the upper hand. In to that mix we'd have to pour direct and massive support for the democrats in the FSA and probably reconcile them with the bulk of the army they are currently fighting in order to crush the militants and create the ground for an inclusive not sectarian society post regime removal/overthrow. On the doing nothing option there is a danger (if not already reached) that Syria becomes a huge version of Lebanon in the 80's with Shia, Sunni, Christian and Druze all fighting each other and the place becoming a living hell. It could be argued that with 4 million internally displaced and 2 million refugees in the near abroad (and at a rate that is increasing rapidly) Syria already is hell with the worst refugee crisis since WW2. Does that in itself provide a moral imperative to act and if not, what level would have to be reached before it did? Is there even a point at which human becomes unacceptable and prompts action to try and address the root of the problem? Obviously this reply covers far more ground than your question addressed but I don't think any of it can be looked at in isolation to get a satisfactory response. All I know is that I don't have the answers and I'm glad its not my decision to make. Arab Spring, eh? Not turning out too well for anyone.

Peter, is it your view that the Assad's regime has not used chemical weapons and the attack on 21/8 was a false flag or rebel inspired incident? Or are you just opposed to UK jumping in militarily to dish out some punitive punishment?

The bigger picture is that removing the Alawite regime (it's not about Assad personally) and replacing it with a Sunni one of whatever stripe significantly weakens and isolates Iran by dissolving its only real regional alliance. It also makes make life for HZ much more difficult in Lebanon. The fact that this effectively throws the country of Syria and its people (the majority Sunni's no more wish to live under a Saudi inspired theocratic regime than they do a secular tyranny) under the bus doesn't even appear to be a consideration.

Although he's no friend of theirs the end of Assad's regime would be a strategic disaster for Israel and they'll be demanding all kinds of reassurances from Washington at the moment. The IDF's offensive strikes into Syria have been to destroy kit that was being transferred to HZ in Lebanon for future use against them. Fair play, I reckon.

USA bombs Syria = HZ rockets falling on Northern/Central Israel. Given the racing certainty of the former, it's hardly reckless of the IDF to kick the tyres of their defences in order to prepare for the latter.

no explosions reported though ... but the most likely explanation would be that the US is test firing some of its ship defence systems." could be about to get interesting ... Not yet mate, Congress doesn't return until the 9th of Sept so no move before then.

The really startling thing for me is the obvious impact on international opinion that the vote in Westminster has had. The White House are now insisting that the issue of attacking the Assad regime is debated in Congress so Obama has a proper mandate, and even the Frenchies want Hollande to put the issue to a vote rather than simply cracking on using the executive power of the President. The Russian Parliament are also seeking direct dialogue with Congress in the US to try and persuade them to moderate their response. The outcome won't change in that the US are still going to open a can of whoop-ass on Assad's military assets, but the fact that people are taking a much harder look at this in light of the Westminster vote and the international dialogue it has triggered (even if that is outside of the fairly useless UN structures) really is a significant shift and may bode well for the future, particularly in the engagement with Russia. It would appear that the UK's view actually carries far more weight than the more cynical among us might have previously suspected, and that's interesting.

Shush your mouth. People are arguing about how three shades of same sh*t are fundamentally different, and this is the 'Condem' thre...

^ It's just a little flounce. Remember 'freedom fries' and buying French wine to pour down the drains? Now it's all best buds again - as long as you're doing what Uncle Sam wants. Let's be honest if there was a solid case for this then the UK is generally hawkish enough to get involved, but occasionally, if it's really stupid, we'll pass - Vietnam being a good example. For now this is just one of those times, but if the conflict in Syria does spread further and turn into the anticipated regional war we'll be getting involved sooner or later, if only to keep the gas coming and the lights on at home. But it would be nice for a change not have the world pointing at us and saying "well you started it".

Funny you posted that picture, I was thinking that it wouldn't hurt for the US to be first in this time and then we can join them a few years down the line, maybe just before the end. In the interim we can build and sell them weapons getting filthy rich in the process...

Well that drone strike comparison is a bit batty in the context of a scale of bad-ness, but heck, why not eh? And the Russians too, they finally subdued Grozny by the liberal and indiscriminate use of nerve agents, it just wasn't acknowledged because then 'someone' would have had to do 'something', and no one wants to go there... Anyone else who should get some?

The Arab Governments are up to their necks in it already, funding the absolute worst of the opposition like those who were videoed eating hearts, decapitating priests, murdering prisoners and shooting children for "disrespecting" the faith. Short of sending their armies in to fight, Saudi, Qatar, Jordan et al are about as involved as its possible to be, using Syria to fight the real regional struggle between the Saudi's and Tehran. Diplomacy isn't on their agenda because they are not interested in it.

That is as good a summary as anything I've read in the press over the last 6 months, and exactly why getting involved is completely futile gesture politics.

So now we are bringing in other conflicts? Amazing. Bottom line, is and you still wont admit it, a lot of this Gvmt voted for the war in Iraq. Without that support (and their clamour for even stronger action at the time) things could have been different. Them are the facts and mentioning other conflicts weakens your poor defence of what Hammond et al have said even further. This is the last post I'll make in response to you on this subject because I'm getting quite sick of repeating the same thing. 1) The decision making process on whether or not to attack Syria was carried out properly. This is not the norm of recent times and as such last night's demonstration of proper Parliamentary democracy was something to be applauded. 2) I'm not defending Hammond et al or anyone else. I am not a Tory, I am expressing my own opinion. 3) Yes many people on the government side last night voted for the Iraq war. They did so on the basis of the lies, half truths and misinformation put forward by Blair and his close cabal at the time. Even Blair's Cabinet were not fully informed of the true situation, a deliberate attempt by him to conceal his deception. How then you can claim that the opposition was in full possession of the facts is simply laughable.

Drat, did Blair allow Parliament to debate the invasion of Sierra Leone? No. Deployment of forces to East Timor? No. Kosovo? I don't recall as I was serving at the time, but I don't think he did. Iraq? Well yes, there was a vote, but based on lies and 'cooked' evidence as every honest man in the UK acknowledges. That this time it was done properly (as was Libya) is the exception to the rule of the last 15 years. You may not like that but it doesn't make it any less true.

It's this bit: "...the return of real Parliamentary democracy - something the government actually deserve credit for." But in fact Cameron was pushed into holding a debate by a combination of Miliband and disquiet among his own members, and then screwed up by pushing too far, too fast. Poor political judgement and poor management, rather than a wish to serve parliamentary democracy. AWOL gives him too much credit. I'm not personalising it with a big pat on the back for Dave, I'm giving credit to the fact that the government gave the system a chance to function as it should, and it did. He had the option to just say "right Assad, you and some random Abdul's are going to get the good news" but he didn't. He could have used the royal prerogative and gone ahead with Parliament in recess, but he didn't. I for one think that is an incredibly good thing.

So explain how cruise missile strikes prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again? So explain where I have said to use cruise missiles? I have said that the political pressure we can apply is hamstrung. The big 4 Nato countries of UK, US, France and Turkey could pose some serious political pressure and threats to stop use of chemical weapons. To go as far as say that if they are used again Assad will pay and that a joint attack will happen. I didn't say start bombing. But now Assad has a disjointed and weakened NATO and he is free to keep using more dangerous and aggressive weapons to win this war. Like the incendiary bombs of last night. I don't agree with the premise of what you are saying. We have been putting political pressure on Assad for two years, to absolutely no effect. He doesn't care and he doesn't need to while the Russians and the Iranians and standing behind him. If political pressure could have made a difference it would already have done so. Anyway despite him being an utter barsteward Assad winning is probably the best possible outcome now. Either way there will be a blood bath but at least he's rational, unlike the Jihadi groups opposing him.