There are two strongly conflicting opinions over taking military action in Syria. And there has been a great deal of muddled thinking caused in part by President Obama's spurious 'redline' over chemical weapon use. But if you think it is simply a matter of hawks v doves think again. It is much more a matter of being true to, and consistent with, the core principles governing conservative thinking as averse to those governing leftist liberal thinking, as I will explain.
For a start, it should not escape notice that the pre-eminent 'hawks' leading the 'let's-nuke-em' campaign are far from being Thatcher/Reagan-style conservatives. Those ring leaders seemingly bent on military action are Democrats Obama and Kerry, 'liberal' conservative David Cameron and the rabidly socialist Francois Hollande. That triumvirate agreeing on anything of a more serious nature should alert us to the review the bigger picture: the international morality inherent in the 'rules of engagement' when it comes to military intervention in the domestic affairs of others.
But first, let me nail my colours to the mast. I backed the invasion of Iraq. If you haven't already switched off in disgust, let me briefly explain why, as it, at the very least, reveals more consistency than is on display in the current debate over Syria. I backed the US-led invasion of Iraq for precisely the same reasons articulated consistently in the media by British leftist commentator Christopher Hitchens (and the Bush White House, though few were listening closely): regime change. Not, as the rather naive debate in the UK has it, after Tony Blair's ludicrous re-emphasis in the House, over WMD. It is often forgotten that Parliament overwhelmingly voted for military action in Iraq. Only since the allied powers' poor post-invasion plan (exacerbated by US determination to demob the Iraqi Army) became known have so many attempted to invoke the "Blair lied to us!" nonsense. It didn't make any difference what Blair said about WMD, it was never the key issue.
The fact was that
Saddam was a serial invader of other people's countries. He'd invaded Kuwait (twice) and Iran and lobbed rockets into, and threatened, Israel. In short, he was an international pariah who, quite rightly, had to go. Not least, as the world generally and US and western economic powers specifically, had to keep picking up the tab to clean up the Saddam-created regional mess.
In view of my support for military action in Iraq, a friend once asked, "Why then not invade Zimbabwe to get rid of Mugabe?" Well that's quite simple. Zimbabwe's internal affairs might be repellent to us. Humanitarian concerns might even cause us to act internationally with diplomatic warnings, sanctions and the like. But intervening militarily in the internal affairs, and thus breaching the national sovereign rights, of another country, is another matter entirely--and especially in Syria.
Syria is no clear-cut affair between the good and the bad. The whole thing is just plain ugly. I am as repulsed as anyone else by the domestic actions of President Bashir Assad (just as I was by his father's actions). But I'm also just as repulsed by the nature of the 'rebels'--a hotch-potch of allies including Islamists including al Qaeda fighters. Do we really want to intervene in an internal struggle between what is, at root, a Sunni v Shia Muslim fight; merely aiding one or other ultimately anti-democratic, anti-Western Islamist government? We did that In Libya, remember. How well did that go? Well, in thanks for all the help the rebels got, they murdered the US ambassador and his staff and attempted to murder the French ambassador too.
So just how do the liberal-led 'hawks' over Syria justify taking up arms with either side? Well by invoking what
they believe to be the highest moral criteria: 'humanitarianism'. Yes, there undoubtedly are some terrible things happening in Syria and to ordinary people, too. And human suffering does matter. But when international military intervention is under consideration other key and moral factors come into play. If we can help with aid, diplomacy et al we should aim to help, especially help solve, the situation. But taking military action, and thus sides in a domestic dispute, is
not an option. It is a civil war and as such an internal affair between age-old bitter and murderous wings of Islamism. Do we really want to help one side exchange one despotic tyranny for another?
So what about the use of chemical weapons? Without doubt, it is reprehensible. But it is far from clear who
precisely has been using them. In that regard I recently heard an Englishwoman who is living in Syria interviewed on UK radio. She pointed out that the widespread feeling in Syria itself is that it could just as well have been rogue elements in the government or elements among the rebels. Islamists of all hues, as their 'war' on Israel, have continually total disregard for innocent life, often utilising hospitals and schools for military purposes. And President Obama's rash warning about a 'redline' if ever chemical weapons were used was virtually an open invitation for someone somewhere to do exactly that; and manipulate the West for their own ends. Neither is 'intelligence' about chemical weapon use, as we learned in Iraq, necessarily evidence.
Finally, let us turn back to exactly why it is largely liberal thinkers that are so prominent in calling for military action. Liberalism (and Libertarianism) appears to take it as read that the chief virtue is individual liberty. As much as I hold individual liberty dear, I beg to differ. While for liberalism, wronging someone's 'humanitarian' rights has become a 'redline', it isn't for either historic Judeo-Christianity or for the Western civilisation to which it gave birth.
What liberals and libertarians alike fail to understand, is that one man's freedom is often another man's burden. Thus good governance will always recognise, as historic conservatism grasps and the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches, that, as important as individual liberty
is, it must often be trumped by a higher consideration: the greater good of the family, the community, society and, ultimately, the nation-state. Thus when it comes to action over Syria, the issue of 'humanitarian rights' should be viewed in the light of an even greater common good: that inherent in the protection afforded by national sovereignty. Ignoring that right, we simply return to tribal barbarianism--and arbitrary 'redlines' drawn by naive politicians. While regime change may be a necessary consideration for the international community when states perpetrate or sponsor acts of violence
beyond their borders, external military action to promote that end is a moral non-starter.
Which is why the UK Parliament vote for action in Iraq was right (if for the wrong reasons for some MPs) and why Parliament's refusal to take sides in Syria's civil war--particularly one between murderous Islamic factions attempting to replace one anti-democratic regime with another--is
none of our
military business.
