Syria: will the West attack?

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 I find it surprising that Stop The War Coalition apart from some web statements has been fairly inactive in opposing the build up to the war. Of course, i fully expect the BBC and the yellow press not to seek contrary opinions to the prevailing war-mongering. But an appeal to 1945 nostaligia brings many thousands of activists to a conference hall. A Left Unity project creates dozens of new local groups of activists. But where is the anti-war movement?

 Will we see a million march again in a show of real unity demanding no war but class war? 

ALB wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i fully expect the BBC and the yellow press not to seek contrary opinions to the prevailing war-mongering.

This is an exaggeration. The BBC has been regularly interviewing Tory MPs who are opposed to British intervention in the Syrian civil war. Two in particular are John Baron and Adam Holloway. 

Both have a military background and could well be unofficial spokespersons for a section of the military establishment that is opposed to intervention (though in the end the military will do what the government tells them). But the ruling class seem to be split on this one.

Just listened to Holloway on Radio 4. Here's some of what what he said (he was actually more forcefully anti-intervention):

Quote:

Conservative MP Adam Holloway said Parliament must be consulted but he doubted whether MPs would sanction any military action, since intervention was not in the UK's national security interest and would be "pure foolishness".

It appears that a "No" vote in parliament would be much more effective than any anti-war march. Which, after all, is what we'd expect, isn't it?

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Where will the LibDems stand on this occasion?  Will all Labour members oppose the war? 

Regardless, Cameron can still go ahead without Parliamentary approval using his Royal Perogative as can Obama without Congress consent with his presidential executive powers. 

If Cameron's whips do not foresee a majority, don't expect a vote. 

It has just been announced that there is going to be a vote in parliament, but not on what question exactly?

[alanjjohnstone]

Not too much of an exaggeration if you compare column inches and minutes of air time. Anyways, Protest the war  Downing Street, 5—7pm, Wednesday 28th August

[alanjjohnstone]

SOYMB has had numerous posts on the blog about the Syrian conflict, the latest http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-war-drums-beat-louder.html Socialist Courier anti-war post here http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2013/08/syria-war-and-class-war.html

[alanjjohnstone]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-intelligence-seen-as-central-to-us-case-against-syria/ Will we get the copies and transcripts of these radio messages? Is this the evidence Cameron says is forthcoming?

[alanjjohnstone]

Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey to a Democratic congressman advocating such an intervention, which warned that it would be counterproductive as the so-called rebels would not further US interests if they were to succeed in overthrowing Assad.“It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not,” Dempsey wrote to Congressman Eliot Engel of New York.“We can destroy the Syrian air force,” the general said. “The loss of Assad’s air force would negate his ability to attack opposition forces from the air, but it would also escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict. Stated another way, it would not be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict.”The US commander concluded: “The use of US military force can change the military balance, but it cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict.”

[alanjjohnstone]

The UK military sceptics.  General Lord Dannatt, former head of the British army, and Lord West, former first sea lord, both warned of unintended consequences. "It's wrong," said Dannatt of the strike plan being drawn up in Washington, Paris and London. "Because although undoubtedly by any moral standards at all using chemical weapons against your own people – which is what on the balance of probabilities it now seems Assad has done – [is wrong] this does not constitute an open invitation for the international community to impose themselves on the internal affairs of another country."He told the BBC that the international community was "fractured" on the issue and one of the many unknowns about Syria was "what the effect of these strikes would be on the developments and consequences of the civil conflict". Dannatt said David Cameron needed to use Thursday's recall of Parliament to convince the British people that military action is the right step. "A clear case will only be made if a strategic context of how such an intervention can be made is laid out clearly. For the objectives, the beginning, the middle, and the end – how it's all going to finish."Lord West, a former minister, urged diplomacy before military action and was among those worried the west could find itself sucked into a vortex of violence in the region. He told the Daily Mail he was "very wary" of an attack and said if Assad was responsible for the attack, there should be a UN resolution condemning him."The region is a powder keg," he said. "We simply can't predict which way military action will go." Lord King, the former defence secretary, said it was imperative to find a solution, "and it mustn't be military". The former British ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, said: "It cannot be in the British national interest to see Assad disintegrate under the pressure of cruise missile attacks, and whatever else may be done, such that his stocks of chemical weapons fall out of his control into the hands of the extremist Jihadists among the rebels "This is why this decision on what to do next is truly the decision from hell."  General Sir David Richards, who only stood down as chief of the defence staff earlier this summer, is understood to have previously cautioned against attacking Syria, while on Tuesday a former senior naval officer, Rear Admiral Chris Parry, said he believed London and Washington were repeating a mistake by turning to the military before properly establishing their objectives."More responsibility needs to be thrown at Russia and China," said Parry, who used to command the UK's amphibious task group. "Instead of sending cruise missiles into Syria we should be sending diplomatic cruise missiles into Russia and China…" Actually, the proposed peace talks have been thwarted not by Syria or Russia but by the US and UK who wished to impose pre-conditions upon them such as excluding Iran.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/russia-warns-u-s-over-syria-criticizes-delay-to-peace-talks.html  

[Young Master Smeet]

Juan Cole has some interesting points to make:http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/bombing-unlikely-effective.htmlNoticeably, without the weak tu quoque or cod-anti-Imperialist positions from the STW types.  Tellingly:

Quote:

Given the logistical and tactical difficulties of intervening from the air, and given the lack of a UNSC resolution authorizing the use of force, Obama … encouraging the [ opposition] to create a long-term civil resistance instead of going the militarization route. Some struggles have to be fought over a couple of decades, and those typically only succeed if non-violent. [Tunisia's use of nonviolence and its elites' resort to bargaining and compromise are the success story, not the more violent struggles in the region.]

It's hard to play the pragmatic/practical card when professional politicians are getting emotive over chemical weapons (which are, of course, abominable).

[J Surman]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 It's hard to play the pragmatic/practical card when professional politicians are getting emotive over chemical weapons (which are, of course, abominable).

Abominable as they may be it hasn't stopped the west from using chemical weapons for years with extremely abominable results. And they continue to use them and sell them to anyone who wants them – what else would you do with all the waste from nuclear projects? Depleted uranium, before that agent orange, whatever. Sheer hypocrisy.Look at the horrific evidence from Iraq – but i won't go on about that.Syria? They've been on the axis of evil list for some years now, so we have to 'get them', don't we? No matter what the outcome, no matter who recently used the chemical weapons, and it points strongly to the 'rebel' side.  My future world is a socialist world and would be happy to see Assad, like Cameron, Obama, et al overthrown with that end in mind BUT it's not about that and what the hell will happen IF the Syrian military is beaten and the place is left in the hands of the jihadis? It appears that numbers of the FSA have even crossed over to the government side, recognising their better option.People here (Turkey) aren't too happy about what's going on next door either even if the PM does love to keep winding things up. A staunch NATO member. Sorry, links and things are far too time consuming  for me with this 2G moble link so I'm sticking with simple messages.

[alanjjohnstone]

This article is of interest since it refutes the Cameron "too little too late " case.The UN did not actually formally put forward a request to inspect Ghouta until Saturday 24th and Syria agreed the next day  on the Sunday. Whereupon the US immediately pressed for the UN to abandon the inspection and withdraw. (repeat of  Kosovo and Iraq)In previous alleged attacks US/UK insisted that despite the long time lag, they would be able to detect evidence of sarin use but now they change their position and argue that a few days delay would destroy evidence. The mainstream press have failed to highlight the inconsistency. http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/08/in-rush-to-strike-syria-u-s-tried-to-derail-u-n-probe/ The only hard evidence apart from their "common sense" case as Kerry called it  is the Israeli comms interception i referred to above.  I think the slow-down in the rush to war is just a temporary respite

[alanjjohnstone]

When is a chemical weapon not a chemical weapon  – when the Americans use it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html

[alanjjohnstone]

The pro-war case "I have no illusions that the rebel forces in Syria have greater moral scruples than do Assad and his forces. But it is also implausible that this was a rebel-launched false flag attack, because of its scale and scope. It is simply not conceivable that the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia or other major players would allow any of the Sunni jihadi groups operating in Syria to build up a significant stockpile of chemical weapons and use them on numerous targets simultaneously. The risk that these weapons could be used against Israel, the US or other targets would be too great to allow.This was, in all likelihood, the work of a regime that has already killed more than 100,000 of its own people and forced millions to become refugees. That the world community would sit by while the Syrian government so brutalises its own people is an even greater moral obscenity than this particular use of illegal weapons."http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/201382710851628525.htmlNote the author ascribes every Syrian deaths to the government 100,000, as if the rebel SFA never ever kills!!But again it is based on a matter of conjecture and opinion that the the Western Powers can control and contain Al-Qaeda in Syria. 

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think the slow-down in the rush to war is just a temporary respite

You could be right, but it looks as if the Cameron regime has got cold feet about getting a favourable vote from parliament:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/back-from-the-brink-david-cameron-forced-to-retreat-over-syria-8788612.htmlEven so, the hypocrites might still go ahead despite the thousands of people likely to die unnecessarily as a consequence of their bombing. They don't want to stop any further civilian deaths but to weaken the Syrian government with a view to its eventual overthrow by, they hope, a gang that will favour Western interests in the area.

[alanjjohnstone]

Is the Left war-weary? Here in the UK and the US ( http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/08/28/anti-war-groups-plead-poverty-as-reason-theyre-not-protesting-syria-intervention/ )  the anti-war movement appears to be slow in arising. Several hundred on Wednesday for the Downing St. Just 5000 expected for Saturdays demo.  “The Democrats are missing in action because of course the president is a Democrat,” said David Swanson, a longtime antiwar activist and author of War Is a Lie and When the World Outlawed War, who works with Roots Action, a progressive nonprofit. “That’s the biggest factor, I think. What’s tamping down the activism is partisanship.” But that reasoning doesn’t apply to the UK, and many of the more outspoken opposition has come from the right wing and their press. The Daily Mirror, for instance was strongly against the Iraq war but is very hawkish in the Syrian war.  Is it perhaps a case of the realisation that simple protest changes little?  Anyways even if it is short notice, i hope the London branches can get a leaflet out and distribute it at Saturdays march. 

[ALB]

Looks as if a vote against in parliament, not any mass demonstrations, is going to be  the only way to stop Britain bombing Syria and the repurcussions this is going to have on ordinary people in the region. This was always the case anyway and confirmation of our analysis of the way the modern capitalist state, based on universal suffrage, works. So, Stop the War's energies would be better directed at lobbying MPs.The problem for them is that as a pro-Islamist organisation they don't know which side to support as some of them are supporters of Sunni Muslim extremism and so want that side to win the civil war in Syria. This article highlights some of the difficulties they are facing and may explain why they can't mobilise as many people as before — their Sunni Muslim supporters are staying away. Might be worth going to their demo on Saturday just to see if this is confirmed. In any event Stop the War is a dubious organisation.

[alanjjohnstone]

Obama, Biden, Hagel – we are sure….American intelligence, we don't actually know very much….http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-intelligence-weapons-no-slam-dunk-070731192.html "U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said."

[Author]

Posts