Britain’s military response to Syria
To The Times
The speed of response by the US president to the chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces throws the events of August 2013, when MPS voted against British involvement in military intervention in the Syrian conflict, into sharp relief. The Prime Minister now needs to know if she could take similar action, or if she is hidebound by the Commons vote against David Cameron, which he took as limiting him in future decisions. Swift response may not be an entire foreign policy strategy, but it is time we recognised it has a role to play.
As would have been the case in 2013, it could persuade the Syrian regime that military subjugation of its own people is not possible, so a swiftly negotiated end to conflict is wise. The Commons should seek the earliest possible opportunity to debate its role and the autonomy of the Prime Minister, confirming and clarifying her ability to act in an executive capacity in such circumstances. Rt Hon Alistair Burt, MP, minister for the Middle East 2010-13
To The Times
Alistair Burt’s regret that Parliament prevented his government attacking the Assad regime in 2013 shows a staggering failure to learn from recent foreign policy mistakes. Jihadists were praying fervently that Britain and America would join the Syrian civil war in 2013. Had we made war on Assad, with no plan for jus post bellum, the chief beneficiary would have been al-qa’eda, whose forces were battling Assad at the time.
At the first Easter time, the founder of Christianity warned that “those who live by the sword will die by the sword”. When will British policymakers learn that? Dr Nick Megoran, reader in political geography, Newcastle University
To The Times
Nick Megoran has, with respect, missed the point that Alistair Burt was making. Theresa May needed the option of joining the US military response. However, due to the recent convention that the Government cannot take military action without the consent of Parliament, that option was effectively never on the table.
This new convention emerged in 2003 when, for the first time in British history, the House of Commons voted to authorise Tony Blair to go to war against Iraq. The result is that Britain is now constrained from ever having the option to take immediate military action, however urgent and necessary such action may be.
Going to war is an executive action, not a legislative or consultative one. It is the duty of the Government to act as it deems necessary and immediately thereafter justify its actions to Parliament or face the consequence of a vote of no confidence.
That is how it worked for centuries and how it should continue. Otherwise, this country is militarily permanently paralysed. James Gray, MP, and Mark Lomas, QC, joint authors of Who Takes
Britain to War?