Now that the missile strike against Syria has been launched, ‘don’t know’ turns into approval
SIR – I am one of the 34 per cent who responded “Don’t Know” in the recent Yougov poll on possible military action against Syria. How can someone with only superficial knowledge of the situation and no access to top-level intelligence data possibly make an informed choice?
Were I now to be asked if I approved of the Government’s decision to attack the chemical weapons sites my answer would a resounding “Yes”.
Sandra Jones Old Cleeve, Somerset
SIR – David Cameron made a serious mistake in allowing Parliament a veto on whether Britain should respond to a previous use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.
I am pleased the Government has reasserted its right to wage war without having to ask permission from MPS, reclaiming the royal prerogative and giving Britain the ability, where necessary, to act quickly in foreign and military affairs.
Michael Staples Seaford, East Sussex
SIR – Theresa May, the Prime Minister, has placed our forces under effective control of an erratic US president. She justifies her actions with the predemocratic doctrine of royal prerogative. Yet it is only legitimate for a prime minister to act without parliamentary endorsement when Britain is directly threatened, and this was manifestly not the case. To participate in this act of militaristic machismo was an abuse of her office.
Mr Trump’s infantile tweet, taunting Russia to “get ready” for his missiles because “they will be coming, nice and new and smart” was almost beyond belief. For the de facto leader of the West to talk like Joe Pesci in Goodfellas brings the American democratic process into question and undermines the post-war geopolitical settlement premised on law and rules-based international relations. Rev Dr John Cameron
St Andrews, Fife
SIR – Many people opposed this strike, including me. I was worried that President Donlad Trump was being goaded into this attack by globalists.
That doesn’t matter now – it’s done. No servicemen are dead, poison gas production will stop and there will be no Third World War. I can live with that.
The Obama era of appeasement and cowardice is over, and there is a new sheriff in town. Russia can squeal all it wants. There is a big difference between a punitive strike for the war crime of using a WMD against your own people and what Vladimir Putin did in Georgia and the Ukraine.
Michael A Pacer Paso Robles, California, United States
SIR – If we knew that, despite undertakings, President Bashar al-assad of Syria continued to have chemical weapon facilities, why did we not take them out before he used them, instead of only after he did so?
David Pitts East Molesey, Surrey
SIR – Successful operations in modern warfare rely on many factors, including surprise. Some of the public seem to have overlooked the immense pressure and danger under which RAF aircrew conducted this strike. A parliamentary debate and agreement would have simply increased the risks to the aircrew involved.
E J Arkell Kettering, Northamptonshire
SIR – I watched and listened to Theresa May giving her statement on television regarding the earlier Syrian action. In my opinion we are fortunate we now have a strong Prime Minister. She must be fully supported by the continuing United Kingdom.
Kenneth Charles Archer Mold, Flintshire
SIR – It appears that Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, believes that military force should only be used in defence of this country, and that the use of chemical weapons doesn’t directly affect “us”. I think Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who went to the aid of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, might disagree.
Cameron Morice Reading , Berkshire
SIR – It remains to be seen what effect the United States, Britain and France raining down cruise missiles, to deter Assad from using chemical weapons on his own people, will have.
However, Mr Corbyn’s declaration that he intends to continue to “pressure” Assad to destroy his chemical weapons stockpile must have that gentleman quaking in his boots. Captain Graham Sullivan RN (retd) Gislingham, Suffolk
SIR – Mr Corbyn has said: “Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace.” Unless, presumably, they are planted by his friends in the IRA, deliberately to kill men, women and children.
The British, American and French attack was precisely targeted and avoided civilian casualties.
Guy Rose London SW14
SIR – Mr Corbyn’s letter to the Prime Minister about the Syrian crisis said: “Our only priority must be the safety and security of the Syrian people”. I have been under the delusion for years that the Government’s priority is the safety and security of the British people.
Andrew Barr St Albans, Hertfordshire
SIR – I had long thought Mr Corbyn an idealistic person, as shown over the years by his voting for his beliefs, rather than the dictates of party whips.
However, his attitude on the chemical weapon attacks in Syria has led me to wonder whether there is something more sinister afoot.
He insists on holding talks, rather than taking military action. What does he think has been going on for the past seven years or so? The only country to gain from these prolonged talks has been Russia.
Peter Morley Southwick, West Sussex
SIR – Jeremy Corbyn and Emily Thornberry, the shadow Foreign Secretary, have been vocal in their criticism of Theresa May’s decision to join America and France in action against Assad’s chemical weapons facilities. They argue she should have recalled Parliament to vote on the action. Both of them, of course, would have voted against.
They seem not to have considered the message this would have sent to our friends and allies, whom we often need to support us, and to tyrants who may ever consider the use of chemical weapons. It would have shown we are an unreliable ally, and are prepared to stand by while evil regimes kill their own people without fear of reprisals.
Many Labour MPS under Mr Corbyn, with some Conservative MPS, are what those of a certain age would label “appeasers”, afraid to stand up to Vladimir Putin, and happy to sit on their hands while he and Assad have free rein to use chemical weapons whenever they like. Shame on them.
Michael Edwards Haslemere, Surrey
SIR – Dead is dead, whether your head is removed by a .50 calibre bullet, your body is ripped apart by a grenade, or you are asphyxiated by gas.
A little less virtue signalling, please, and more energy spent avoiding, defusing (and certainly not contributing to) conflict.
E J Hammond Faux, Dordogne, France
SIR – Jeremy Corbyn need not concern himself about airstrikes against the Assad regime. Because of the limited scope of the strikes, Assad’s thugs have had their morale boosted and are now mocking the West as “paper tigers”.
I do think the warning about chemical weapons (to unprotected dictators, elsewhere, in the future) is a legitimate one. But the Syrian job should have been done properly in 2013, in a Russia-free environment. That was thwarted by another Labour leader and a weak president of the United States, Barack Obama. The cost of that neglect to the Syrian people is incalculable.
Derrick Gillingham London SW1
SIR – Diane Abbott said on BBC Radio 4 on Friday that today’s Labour Party would have supported military action in the Second World War.
Unfortunately, the Labour Party of 2018 is not the Labour Party of 1939. So the question must be asked: when would today’s Labour Party have supported military action against Nazi Germany?
Remember that in September 1939 the Soviet Union was allied with Nazi Germany (and consequently the Communist Party of Great Britain opposed the war until June 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union).
Remember also that when Australia, Britain, France, New Zealand and South Africa declared war in September 1939, none of those countries had been attacked by Germany.
Given the fabrication by German special forces of an attack on German territory by Polish troops to provide a casus belli, one can imagine today’s Labour Party in September 1939 calling for independent investigation under the auspices of the League of Nations in order to obtain definite proof of who was the aggressor (and also possibly questioning the legality of the various declarations of war).
John Ceybird Norwich
SIR – I can recall Sunday September 3 1939 when the prime minister told the country we were at war with Germany. Having yesterday heard Jeremy Corbyn in discussion with Andrew Marr, it is frightening to imagine Mr Corbyn being the leader of the Labour Party, let alone prime minister.
BE Norton Royal Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire
SIR – I wonder if the so-called “deconfliction hotline” between Russia and America set up recently to avoid clashes over Syria could be thought of as the equivalent of the Wakhan Corridor, a long strip of land a few miles wide in Afghanistan, which separated the boundaries of the Russian empire and British India in the 19th century, in order to minimise the risk of direct contact between the two during the Great Game.
Perhaps the long-running “Game” was never concluded.
Jeremy Burton Wokingham, Berkshire
SIR – Does it never occur to Mr Corbyn that there may be a reason why Russia used its veto to stop UN investigations into the Syrian chemical attack?
Tony Hill Stratford-upon-avon, Warwickshire
SIR – In October 2013 you reported that a book by Giles Milton described how Winston Churchill authorised chemical weapons attacks on Bolsheviks.
Toni Morgan Chesham, Buckinghamshire
SIR – I am an old man with limited mobility or I would be outside Downing Street now demonstrating my dissent. As it is, The Daily Telegraph Letters page is the most public forum I can think of to make known my views.
James Henry Shaw London W5