Tomorrow our government decides whether to go ahead with air strikes to Syria. I share the reservations of so many that this will be at all successful in its aim...after all, we haven't been effective there so far have we? Also it was BECAUSE of the bombing of Syria that the terrorists chose to massacre the innocent citizens of Paris....bit of a no brainer there.
This article is pertinent.....
I wrote to my MP (Plaid Cymru) this afternoon about this and got a very prompt reply (yn Cymraeg hefyd, but I reckoned most of you would prefer the English ;)):
Many thanks for your message regarding military intervention in Syria.
I would firstly like to make clear that I consider Daesh/IS to be a barbaric threat. The nations of the worlds must work together to overcome this perverse and ideologically obsessed force for the sake of peace and justice.
Prime Minister David Cameron and others in the Government believe that an immediate airborne military response in Syria by UK forces is the best way to bring the presence of Daesh in that country to an end, and to destroy the influence of their followers in the Middle East and the West. I believe that such a strategy will not bring about the desired results, and that it could easily lead to worsening the situation in that region and at home.
Firstly, the war against terror has been waged for over 14 years, yet the security threat faced by the UK is set at Severe. The first priority of any defence policy should be to safeguard the domestic population of the state. I believe this intervention is likely to increase the security threat to the UK.
Secondly, intervention by Western powers plays into the hands of Daesh and their poisonous ideology, which attracts followers by claiming to be the guardians of religious fundamentalism against religiously-motivated attacks by non-believers. This ideology must be prevented from increasing its adherents in the Middle East and the West, rather than be fuelled.
Thirdly, 13 foreign countries have been bombing Syria for over two years to little strategic effect. These forces are lead by the most powerful and well-resourced air force in the world, namely the US Air Force. It is difficult to perceive that intervention by the RAF will be strategically decisive in such circumstances.
Fourthly, I am very concerned about heavy-handed intervention in an area where the presence of regional forces and powers on the ground is extremely complex. Historically, Western governments did not support Assad; indeed, until recently, our objective was to seek regime change in Syria. In contrast to this, Russia and Iran are directly intervening in Syria to protect Assad. The question must be asked, therefore, regarding who will be expected to fill the vacuum if military action is successful. Unless the strategic interests of Russia, the West and neighbouring countries such as Iran are in alignment, it can be argued that military intervention would be highly risky. The increasing tensions between Turkey and Russia bear witness to this.
The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary claim that 70,000 free Syrian rebels are on the ground, ready and waiting to attack Daesh and then to form a government. It is very difficult to have confidence in this assertion. Even the pro-war newspaper, the Times, has described this claim as guesswork and optimism. Yet the presence of large numbers of regional free soldiers is essential to any long-term success. Without them, it is possible to foresee a situation of mission creep where soldiers of Western forces are deployed on the ground, which is highly likely to aggravate the conflict yet further.
Fifthly, turning to the Libyan situation, it is possible to see how the UK and Western forces have proven themselves adept at bombing countries without giving proper consideration for investment following the conflict in order to ensure that a viable society is reconstructed. Libya is now a failed state, offering a safe haven to Daesh and its followers. In spite of the Wests intervention in a number of countries in the Middle West and North Africa, failed governments have allowed Daesh to gain ground. I cannot support military action without evidence that the UK Government possesses both the intention and the means to work with others to rebuild peace and the structures essential to resilient civic life in the wake of the war. The Prime Minster has referred to this, but in a superficial and tokenistic fashion.
Finally, there is no United Nations resolution to support military action. The resolution by the UNs Security Council on 20 November called for member states to take all necessary measures on the territory under the control of ISIS/Daesh to prevent terrorist acts committed by them and other Al-Quaid affiliates, and this is welcomed. I would suggest that the best way in which the UK can undertake this would be to curb the support for Daesh and Islamic fundamentalism originating in Saudi Arabia. Unless Sunni religious leaders desist from preaching extreme religious doctrine, air strikes, arms and soldiers will resolve nothing. Plaid Cymru has also called on the Commons for the UK to use its influence to persuade Turkey to stop attacking the brave Kurdish Peshmerga forces, who are resisting Daesh in North Syria and Iraq. The UK should use its position as a non-combatant to bring the UN Security Council together. Once we become a participant in Syria, it will be difficult for the UK to act as bridgebuilder between Russia and USA. This will be vital if the international community is to play a role in bringing lasting peace to Syria and tackling Daesh as a force in that country.
I hope this summarises my points of view. At this moment, I predict that it is extremely unlikely that I will be able to support a war vote in coming days.
Yn gywir
Liz
Liz Saville Roberts AS/MP
Wow Crowan - what a full, impressive and thought provoking reply! You must be pleased with that.
I found it interesting in shedding light on the bigger picture.
Wow Crowan - what a full, impressive and thought provoking reply! You must be pleased with that.
I found it interesting in shedding light on the bigger picture.
To be honest, I'm thrilled. Until I moved to Wales I had lived all my adult life in safe Tory seats. Now PC ticks all the right boxes.
Whatever your views on this (and I am reluctantly in favour) its not an easy call. But I keep wondering what the outcome of WW2 would have been if our participation had been subject to this kind of debate! In reality it isn't a case of one option being right and one being wrong. Its a case of which option will produce the least worse result.
Whatever your views on this (and I am reluctantly in favour) its not an easy call. But I keep wondering what the outcome of WW2 would have been if our participation had been subject to this kind of debate! In reality it isn't a case of one option being right and one being wrong. Its a case of which option will produce the least worse result.
Do you mind my asking ? ... Why 'in favour'?
Despite substantial opposition, e.g. a vociferous 2 day protest outside Parliament, today the government decided to carry out air strikes to Syria.
Moronic kneejerk response - nothing learnt i.e. the REASON the terrorist massacred Paris citizens was BECAUSE they are being bombed! 
I thought of this song, very old...but still applies
Crowan, what a thorough reply from your MP. Mine (Rushanara Ali) declined to reply, and then voted in favour of bombing 🙁