John Crace (Dave the mighty slayer, 27 November) succinctly and wittily points the reasons why we should not rush to bomb in Syria. I can add little except the perspective of one Labour party member that such actions would be wrong on all counts. We will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, not safer; innocent civilians will be killed and then forgotten; there is no agreement as to a plan for government in Syria; there is no prospect of wide international collaboration; and, as always, the legality is open to debate.
The call to arms is an understandable but mistaken response to tragedy. But, as Jeremy Corbyn contends, we should take time to assess what to do. I did not vote for Corbyn, but in this he provides the leadership that Ed Miliband did two years ago: air attacks are wrong and should not take place. It would appear that too many Labour MPs have spoken, indeed shouted, their views. I would like to see Labour MPs refusing to back the bombing of Syria. That seems unlikely. A free vote is probable. But it is time for MPs to remember that they owe loyalty to the elected leader, and that should influence the way that they behave.
Yes, let us have disagreements but many of us wonder if MPs have the smallest understanding of the way that their behaviour disheartens their own supporters. On the grounds of morality and effectiveness I call on Labour MPs to vote against bombing in Syria. And I call on them to find a way to express differences that is not calculated to diminish the elected leader.
Roger Clough
Emeritus professor, Lancaster University
• There is no shortage of bombs in Syria. It is the number of targets that decides the number of bombs – not the number of countries. The case for joining the coalition is nothing to do with numbers of bombs and everything to do with sharing the responsibility and being involved in the decision-making. Britain has well recognised diplomatic skills that will not be used unless we are part of that coalition. The case against is the uncertainty of the post-conflict policy. Sadly, the UN is not able to play the part it was designed for because Russia and China do not accept regime change as an acceptable policy.
This is a difficult decision although marginally I would support involvement so that we can influence the post-conflict policies. The problem for the Labour party is different. That problem is about leadership or rather lack of it. If that is not resolved soon we will lose the next election and possibly the one after that.
Clive Soley
Labour, House of Lords
• There are only two reasons for joining the attack. The first is symbolic: “We stand shoulder to shoulder” (fair enough up to a point). The second, more cynically, is to ensure a seat at the table dividing up the spoils at the end. If these are the reasons our leaders want to take us to war, perhaps they could be honest enough so say so.
Huw Williams
Purley, Surrey
• There may be a compelling case for bombing Isis in Syria, but David Cameron hasn’t made it. Far from being concerned about sub-contracting the nation’s security to France and the US, his real fear is of being left out of the seating arrangement at the top table, harrumphing along with the big boys who – let’s face it – will do no more than perpetuate their appalling track record in the Middle East.
Labour MPs must therefore oppose him, not their own leader Jeremy Corbyn. I’m not convinced that he has made a compelling alternative case, but that is not reason enough for the MPs in the Labour party to side with the Tories on such a dreadfully serious issue. And any offer of a free vote should not let them off the hook. Bearing in mind that the Labour party is (faute de mieux) the official party of opposition in parliament, those who insist on voting with the Tories should resign. The demise of the Labour party will follow – and, frankly, it will deserve no better.
Shelagh Gardiner
Friockheim, Angus
• Fifty-nine years ago the UK and France colluded in an illegal clandestine attempt to reclaim the Suez canal and oust President Nasser by force, a disastrously misconceived venture which President Eisenhower rightly intervened to stop in its tracks. The subsequent experience of Iraq ought to have taught the UK a few more lessons about such ventures, but no. In 2011 an equally mistaken miscalculation was made that, by bombing and killing Gaddafi, democracy and harmony would be restored to Libya.
After recent events in Paris the desire to show solidarity with France today is understandable, but that does not make a decision to add British bombs to those currently being used against Isis any more likely to succeed than previous exercises of this kind, even if there were troops on the ground. I hope that, if and when a vote comes later this week, MPs of all parties will resist the knee-jerk reaction of voting for British bombing. In particular I hope that my fellow Liberal Democrats will resist any militaristic arguments about protecting Britain’s security and go unanimously into the no lobby. History will be on their side.
Adrian Slade
President of the Liberal party, 1987-88, Richmond, Surrey
• In 2013, parliament rejected a proposal to become involved in the armed conflict in the sovereign state of Syria. International law makes clear no country has the right to interfere in another country’s internal affairs unless requested to do so by the government of that country. No such request has been made by the Syrian government to the United Kingdom. Every Labour MP should, as they did in 2013, vote against any proposal to become involved in the armed conflict in Syria.
When the Labour party’s membership elected Jeremy Corbyn leader in September 2015 it was on the clear understanding that he opposed any UK involvement in the armed conflict in Syria. Corbyn’s overwhelming election commits every Labour MP to oppose Cameron’s proposal to commence bombing campaigns in Syria. There can be no basis for any Labour MP to abstain or seek to have a free vote on this issue.
Arthur Scargill, Ken Capstick, Kim Bryan
Socialist Labour party
• Given that France is the country most hostile to the EU treaty changes sought by the British government, it would be useful to know when considering David Camerons’s enthusiasm for joining the French in a bombing campaign against Isis, whether any assurances have been given by President Hollande as to the French attitude towards the British aspirations in the event of the UK joining in such action.
Alan Pearson
Durham
