Weasel words from a lifelong pacifist
The mail made no secret of its profound reservations about the prospect of military intervention in syria. so this paper – along with, we suspect, many Britons – felt grave concern on saturday morning after learning that more than 100 missiles had been fired by the Western coalition overnight.
Had a missile veered off course, causing carnage in civilian areas? Would the attacks fan the flames of the seven-year civil war? Would they provoke a ferocious backlash from Russia, including reprisals against British troops based in nearby Cyprus who had bravely done their duty? And, critically, would they do anything to loosen Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin’s murderous stranglehold on a benighted country? As we argued last week, with an unpredictable maverick in the White House issuing threatening tweets, a French president revelling in the limelight and, on the other side of the equation, a belligerent thug in the Kremlin, the potential for catastrophe was very real. two days later, that danger of escalation has not abated. indeed, it may be weeks or months before the consequences are fully felt.
Yet let us be thankful for some small mercies. As the dust settled, it became abundantly clear that the strikes were both limited and carefully targeted against three chemical weapons sites. Britain, France and the Us had gone out of their way to give Putin a reason not to react.
indeed, after days of Us sabre-rattling, Russia and syria had been given all the time in the world to withdraw their personnel, reducing the likelihood of casualties (though also, of course, ensuring the strikes would have a reduced impact).
And while last week the Government had – regrettably – said little about the case for action or what it was proposing, the Prime minister’s speech from Downing street did much to settle nerves.
in clear and compelling terms, theresa may set out the evidence that chlorine gas was used in the barbaric attack on Douma a week earlier – which cost the lives of up to 75 people including children – and that the murderous Assad regime was responsible. over the weekend, terrifying testimony has emerged to support her conclusions.
But more importantly, she made clear the bombing raids were designed solely to stop more such attacks, and were neither an attempt to remove Assad nor to drag Britain into another iraq-style conflict. Did she rein in President trump’s plans for a wider bombardment, with much greater risk attached? if so, she deserves no small amount of credit.
today, she will rightly come to Parliament to explain why she decided not to seek approval from the Commons in advance.
Which brings us to Jeremy Corbyn, and a damning interview yesterday in which the Labour leader proved once again how utterly unfit he is to hold high office.
As a lifelong pacifist, he could have made clear why he opposes the use of force by Britain not just in syria but under almost all circumstances, and why – as he said in 2010 – he opposes all cuts to government spending except those to the military.
instead, he resorted to weasel words, arguing that UN inspectors should be allowed to go in, despite knowing Russia has repeatedly vetoed inspections.
Worse, he refused to accept that Assad was behind Douma and failed to condemn Russian propaganda claiming Britain was responsible. And once again, he could not accept Russia was culpable for the salisbury nerve agent outrage.
there is a perfectly respectable argument opposing military action in syria, which mr Corbyn could have made. instead, he appeared to align himself with Britain’s enemies. Not for the first time, the mail is forced to ask a simple question of the man who – unthinkably – could be in charge of Britain’s national defence: Whose side are you on, mr Corbyn?