Labour’s opposition to bombing Syria was established at its recent party conferences (Labour debate on Syria, 30 November). As this view has since been augmented by a clear majority of the wider membership, the stated opinion of Scottish party leader Kezia Dugdale, an at best ambiguous mood among the general public, not to say the testimony of exiles from Raqqa pleading for a respite from western military intervention of the type envisioned by Cameron, on the basis of what possible mandate are Labour rebels planning to vote with the government? No doubt they feel privileged to have been drawn into the confidences of the Tory cabinet. But given recent history, they must surely suspect such briefings as likely to be informed by political rather than moral expedience.
Mike Cowley
Scottish Labour Campaign for Socialism
• Jeremy Corbyn’s decision to concede a free vote on Syria is intriguing. Far from being reassured, Labour moderates should be worried. MPs will be under greater threat from radical activists for having violated “official policy”. Most importantly, what we have learned is that Corbyn and those around him are not, in fact, seeking the warm glow of martyrdom. If they were, forcing the issue over Syria would have been the ideal opportunity to be martyred. We now know that their ambitions are to genuinely transform the Labour party. This will be a curious transformation – electorally suicidal and focused on the adulation of activists – but it is under way. The leaders have given ground tactically in order to dig in. Mr Corbyn and his advisers are playing for all the marbles. His opponents had better learn to keep up.
Dr Robert Crowcroft
University of Edinburgh
• People are understandably haunted by the ghosts of Iraq, but there is an older ghost they should be worrying about. Long before Iraq or even 9/11, thousands of Muslims were massacred in Bosnia, while the world watched and did nothing. That experience radicalised a generation of Islamists, who then went out to spread the word. The same arguments that were made against intervention then, and in Kosovo later, are being used now; but while bombing kills, failure to act can kill many more. As Assad continued for years, gassing and bombing his own people, non-action by the west replaced Iraq as the main tool for recruiting jihadis. When they opposed action against Assad, Labour MPs thought they were voting against war in Syria; instead they were merely voting to prolong it, and Islamic State is the result.
Marilyn Polan
Cookham, Berkshire
• It is essential, before the vote on extending UK bombing to Syria, for the government and those members of the shadow cabinet and Labour party who support this, to clarify their position on the clear consequences of such a move. It is accepted by all experts that Isis will not be defeated by bombing alone, without coherent and effective ground forces. So far the only possible source for the latter that has been identified is the (heavily factionalised) Syrian opposition to Assad. Do those in favour of bombing Isis in Syria therefore also support extending further assistance to the Syrian opposition, even to the extent of arming them? And how would such a move avoid drawing the UK deeper into the Syrian civil war, with all the risks this would run of direct conflict with Russia and Iran?
Lee Bridges
Ilmington, Warwickshire
• Having had the honour of moving the amendment against war in Iraq in the great debate of March 2003, I have followed closely the debate on British intervention in Syria. I am unmoved by what I have heard and read. I am taken by the number of similarities between 2003 and now, particularly the number of unanswered questions relating to this latest proposed military adventure. In all probability, the government’s proposed action will lead to outcomes in Syria as disastrous as they were in Iraq. If I were still an MP, I would, without doubt, vote against the government’s proposal. There is no merit in military action unless it can be shown that it will achieve a clear objective, it is within international law and will do more good than harm. As yet, that case is unproven.
Peter Kilfoyle
Former Labour MP and defence minister, Liverpool
• Tony Blair’s big lie, before the war in Iraq, was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. David Cameron’s big lie is that there are 70,000 “moderate” Syrian ground troops, ready to sustain “democracy”. Most anti-Assad forces fighting alongside Isis are violent Islamists, such as the al-Qaida-affiliated Nusra Front. The Front is known to pose a serious threat here in Britain, yet we are expected to maintain the fiction that its fighters are moderates or de facto allies. Cameron’s long-term aim continues to be illegal regime change. He is intent on removing Assad by force, even if it means allying himself with people far worse than the Syrian president. The consequences for the people of Syria, especially for women, the Shia, Kurds and other minorities are likely to be truly terrible.
Jean Calder
Brighton
• Any Labour MP who votes to support Cameron over Corbyn is doing their electorates and their nation a disservice. Unlike their Tory counterparts they are under no obligation to underwrite an uncertain war policy, nor to light a fuse on a powder keg of unknown size and placement. This from a prime minister who seeks cross-party support to hedge his bets with the public (“we’re all in this together”), while using national security as a means to damage his opponents. I welcome the debate, but come the vote, I hope Mr Corbyn receives loyalty from his colleagues. Those who fail to provide this, fail us all.
Dominic Stone
Guildford, Surrey
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
