Atrocities continue in Syria. It is a terrible civil war in which innocents bear the brunt of conflicting ambitions, as always seems to be the case. Yet I still do not see why there is an imperative for the UK to take military action and I still fail to see what limited bomb strikes are going to do to make things better in the country. Will Assad come to heel? I doubt it. And if he doesn't what do you do next? Increase the strikes? And if that doesn't work? I think the UK Parliament has acted correctly here. Seldom do I find myself agreeing with Miliband, but I think he got it right, even if my sense is that he saw the political opportunity to court party political popularity first, and found his conscience second.
Who are the rebels we are supporting? I really don't know but it seems to be an incoherent grouping of various interests, some of whom are definitely not the people we would normally want to side with. That they would be happy for Western fire power in their hour of need is undoubted; that they will be fighting us with a bitter hatred once we are no longer of use is probably equally true. And why is it the UK's problem? Perhaps because we are a permanent member of the UN security Council, an influential position we will increasingly struggle to hold on to as our military power and economy decline? I suspect Cameron was taking the long-term view on US/UK political alliances when he tried to support military strikes. That may be damaged somewhat now, although I don't think Obama has been that supportive of the UK anyway. It seems we have to face up to some very uncomfortable truths of being a fading power.
Where we could help is in providing aid - which - could be practical as much as financial - to the various charities trying to deal with the humanitarian crisis; using what influence we still have to get other Arab nations to support this aim too; working with the major powers to seek a political solution which might mean leaving Assad in place as the lesser of many evils. Despots such as Saddam and Assad, keep a semblance of order by ruthlessly suppressing their populations. Once removed, a whole host of warring factions rush to fill the vacuum. So, firing a few missiles, leader deposed, democracy introduced, factions agree to become docile citizens committed to peaceful co-existence, is a tempting thought but it won't work like that. Moreover it won't work like that even if the West embarks on Afghanistan II. Hard as it may be, the best people to find a way through the mire are the Syrians, and that will be a long hard road too. Anything imposed from outside is extremely unlikely to be effective, even if well intentioned.
LF