Cameron and Obama touting the chemical weapons attack as the sole justification to act without regard to the remaining facts and consequences of action
UK may yet arm rebels, Cameron determined to act on Syria
The indecisiveness of Prime Minister David Cameron and his ideological twin President Obama has produced an ever changing narrative over the question of Syria. While the G20 summit has taken place in Russia, the voids in decision making have been filled by speculation and theorems.
In Britain the country is not consumed by Obama’s latest idea but rather in a question of what to do and why. David Cameron though, seems committed to embracing whatever the White House flavour of the day is. When Obama says “upgrade the capabilities” of the forces opposing Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, Cameron leaves the door open with his spokesman saying “On the question of arming the rebels… the position on that is entirely unchanged. No decision has been taken.”
The Prime Minister would love to be in the President’s position where he can simply blame Congress for not letting him do the right thing. Instead, Cameron is the leader of the parliamentary majority and has to put together a plurality for action, and then live with the consequences.
Meanwhile those of differing opinions have voiced them to eager media audiences, given how unpopular the idea of another conflict is with the British people. David Miliband, former Labour MP and the brother of the Leader of the Opposition, has put forth his views along with the notably direct Mayor of London Boris Johnson.
Miliband said (to the Financial Times) “It is clear that, while international engagement is decreasingly popular in the advanced democracies, a multipolar world makes it increasingly necessary, Humanitarian intervention is about human need, not political sides – but it has political consequences. There is capacity to save more lives, but this needs resources and political will. The drums of war are reason to redouble humanitarian efforts, not forget them. None of the military options being canvassed – or, in the UK, rejected – promises a decisive shift in the course of the conflict".
While most of what David Miliband says is common sense mixed with lefty mush, the last sentence is particularly telling. That none of the presented options promises a decisive shift. Which brings us back to where we were a week ago? What are we doing and why are we seeking to do it?
Boris Johnson’s comments this week while always attention-getting revealed he is solidly in the Cameron-Obama-Hollande camp. He warned that the chemical weapons attack blamed on Bashar Assad’s regime must not go “unpunished”, and pushed to hold a second Commons vote to allow Britain to join military action against Assad’s forces. He said during the week “But to use gas for mass murder is a crime that we cannot allow to go unpunished.”
Writing for the Daily Telegraph he added: “It seems overwhelmingly likely that the forces of the Syrian regime have indeed used chemical weapons and killed hundreds of civilians in an act of utter savagery.”
The problem of course remains that the situation continues to be viewed from only one side of the room. The likely successors of power if Assad fell would be Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood with possible competing regions. There are no good guys to take over; any intervention likely just shuffles the deck of Western enemies.
Regardless Cameron & Obama push forward with the narrative that Assad must be punished, their 4 nation coalition including France and Turkey though the British Parliament has already voted against action.
One positive move that came out of the G20 summit in St Petersburg this week was a resolution by 11 members holding Assad responsible, (although there are still suspicions of Al Qaeda involvement).
Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the UK and the US condemned the "horrific" attack in Damascus and called for a "strong international response".
Interestingly the statement said "The use of chemical weapons anywhere diminishes the security of people everywhere. Left unchallenged, it increases the risk of further use and proliferation of these weapons. The (UN's response was) paralysed (and) the world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to increased suffering in Syria and regional instability."
That last line is the biggest shot across the bow of the week. The G20 members accurately identifying the UN as a paralytic with endless failed processes. It at least shows recognition that the UN is not the great hope of the world that lefties would like to believe.
Regardless it seems the charade will continue. Cameron and Obama touting the chemical weapons attack as the sole justification to act without regard to the remaining facts and consequences of action. They both seem very invested in this so it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be over any time soon.
