Friday, 6 November 2015
Morally indefensible not to bomb Syria
But what about Assad, him too apparently though less is mentioned these days.
The thing is, the US and now Russia and the UAE have been bombing ISIS for a while and yet their boundaries of control remain the same; perhaps at least we can say they are not expanding geographically.
The potential bombing of a Russian airliner this week shows though that the psychology runs deep and ISIS tentacles now spread across much of the muslim world. Even with ISIS wiped out in Raqqa, I can see a decades long struggle ahead as people flock the the idea of a death cult.
So bombing alone is not working and indeed overall will not work. But surely if the case is morally clear, then a UN mandate could be agreed on for the whole world to agree to intervene.
The UN has its chocolate teapot credentials well established, but even this entity managed to agree to the first gulf war. If ISIS needs to be destroyed and Syria stabilised and all of Russia, US, UK, China, Turkey, Saudi, (Even Iran!!) etc agree then surely a global compact could be reached.
Indeed, for the longer war, a global compact is exactly what it needed, to show even the disparate nations of the world with their differing aims and agendas can agree on challenging pure evil when it appears.
But as to Britain further getting involved in the current mess, I see no purpose at all. Our airpower will make no difference, there are no boots on the ground, the strategy is a mess with enemies fighting each other and by proxy.
There may be a moral case, but there is no realistic real world case that would make a jot of difference with hard power. Soft power is still the answer for now.