SYRIA

IT has now been fifteen years since the Iraq War. That conflict has cast a long shadow over British foreign policy. The blowback against former prime minister Tony Blair and those who supported his decision to commit British forces to that conflict was unprecedented. It has created in the current generation of political leaders an extreme caution when it comes to matters of military intervention.

No one doubts that the deployment of an armed response must always be the last resort. But when the caution of politicians means a rejection to step in when it is both appropriate and necessary, we are on very shaky moral ground.

The decision by the British Government along with our international allies France and the United States of direct strikes against Syrian chemical production sites is a clear point in case. The use by the Syrian government of chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 40 people in the town of Douma could not go unchallenged. The West has responded with proportionate force that leaves both Syria and its proxy Russia in no doubt as to what will happen if the ‘red lines’ of chemical weapons are breached or proliferated.

Unfortunately, though, a difficult tone was set by President Trump as he took to Twitter in a typically hot-headed intervention last Wednesday when he promised deployment of ‘smart bombs’ prior to the strikes on Syrian targets. War should not be trivialised using social media, more so even by the president of the United States.

French president Emmanuel Macron, who has previously said the use of chemical weapons in Syria would also represent a “red line”, declared that he had proof the regime of Bashar al-Assad was behind the attack on Douma. Mr Macron remained cautious in the run up to the attacks but should be applauded for the courage he took in committing French warplanes to the cause.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has persistently asked for a full intelligence briefing on the situation in Syria. He also wanted any decision on military intervention to be put to a parliamentary vote.

Naturally, many who favour Britain’s involvement in strikes against the Assad regime will be deeply sceptical about Mr Corbyn’s intentions. He was, after all, once chairman of the Stop the War Coalition, which condemns military action by western governments.

This lack of trust is at the heart of politicians’ inability to move on from the Iraq War when discussing possible deployment of British troops. A common characteristic of those who felt strongly either way about the 2003 intervention is the belief that those with whom they disagree are acting in bad faith.

It is clearly time for our national debate to get past Iraq and for politicians to honestly assess the merits of action based on humanitarian need rather than political risk.

. See also Britain must now act against Syria’s regime