Back at the time of people demanding that we go in to unseat Assad, who has remained considerably more tenacious in his grasp on some power than people predicted and who is still responsible for more deaths than ISIL (though that is probably merely because he has been there for much longer), I wrote this:
However, ladies and gentlemen who demand that we intervene in Syria, could you answer at least some of the following questions?With a few changes those questions are still relevant. Obviously, if we are talking only about extended bombing (people seem not to have noticed that we are already involved in it to some extent) then the urgency of those questions is not so great. Even bombing, as was carried out in Libya, now a completely dysfunctional state, carries with it certain consequences. What if we actually put boots on the ground in a civil war, which has many sides, all of them nasty and few potential allies?
When you say you want us to intervene what kind of intervention do you have in mind and who, do you think, should carry it out? What precisely is a limited military intervention, as suggested by Senator McCain?
What sort of timetable do you have in mind? Weeks? Months? Years? A long occupation with no foreseeable end and if so, who would be doing it?
What would be the agreed aim of the intervention? Simply no more pictures of dead bodies? How can we ensure that? Regime change? I have no problems with that in principle (think Germany, Japan and Italy in 1945) but what sort of regime should we install and how long will it survive?
Do we have any identifiable allies?
And last but very much not least: what is the exit strategy?
It seems that Mr Putin has been rather more effective because he bombed the ISIL oil convoys, headed for Turkey where the business was said to be handled by young master Erdogan, thus provoking his dad to wrath.
ReplyDeleteThe campaign against Assad appears to have been sustained principally by the Saudis ( as proxies for the US) to dislodge Russian influence and bases from Syria. The Saudis are not noted exponents of democratic Western values and share a very similar brand of Islam with ISIL.
Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Assad regime is fascist, beastly but secular - anathema to the theocracy of the Saudis. As in pre invasion Iraq, Syrian Christian and other minorities are the principal victims of the ( in this case attempted) regime change.
It seems to me that bombing by our puny Air Force will be a token gesture so that Dave can posture as one of the big boys. It will be the occasion for demands for us to accept more refugees, many of whom will inevitably be " extremists" or "Islamists" , thus bringing the war more deeply to our own streets and cities.
Getting over the automatic hatred of Cameron (not a man I particularly admire but I do not hate him either) and the equally automatic admiration of the great Vlad, it needs to be said that the Syrian situation is too messy for any of us to be able to work out. One thing we do know: whatever and whoever the Russians are fighting, it is not ISIL. The evidence, in so far as we have any, is that they go for the other groups, some of whom, presumably are seen as our potential allies. No dent has been made in ISIL's power by Mr Putin so his "effectiveness" is questionable.
DeleteWhat amuses me is this time apparently they have a comprehensive plan. The clear implication being the last time they were going to do it they didn't. So it was just a jolly for the RAF. I think this falls firmly into the category of something must be done, this is something, let's do it.
ReplyDeleteWhose command will the Typhoon bombers be under. Whose going to be selecting the targets. I've no idea I wonder if Dave has. As Putin has discovered you intervene there at your peril. Although in our case we're already in the ISIL crosshairs, they're already trying very hard to hit us, so perhaps we have less to lose.
Of course all the questions you have posed should have been asked of the Iraq invasion. Clearly very little thought had been given to what to do after the victory over Saddam. Then just when it looked like we might have stabilised the place along comes Obama and withdraws.
We actually did not stabilize the place, having been thrown out ignominiously at an early stage. In my own opinion the disaster of the British in Basra is what ought to be investigated with a few heads rolling but it will not happen. The Americans stabilized it then along came Obama though the withdrawal is very partial.
DeleteI've read a lot of the Boss's blog posts on the subject of the Brits in Basra, and agree with you. When I said "we" I was referring to the collective Western presence, well alright the Americans.
DeleteThe withdrawal might have been partial, but it was enough to let ISIS into the game, with the results we're now seeing. I think there is more than enough blame to go round on this one.
I've read a lot of the Boss's blog posts on the subject of the Brits in Basra, and agree with you. When I said "we" I was referring to the collective Western presence, well alright the Americans.
DeleteThe withdrawal might have been partial, but it was enough to let ISIS into the game, with the results we're now seeing. I think there is more than enough blame to go round on this one.
To me these debates show the futility of running a foreign policy according to popular opinion
ReplyDeleteIs there really such a thing as popular opinion? An opinion survey can be manipulated to give whichever answer is desired. It all depends on how the questions are asked. Ordinary people cannot possibly understand the complexities of foreign policy. The politicians and their advisers don't understand those complexities. Running a foreign policy is like managing the economy - it never does turn out the way you'd hoped. The safest and sanest foreign policy is to do as little as possible.