In your editorial (Cameron won the day, but his case still doesn’t stack up, 3 December) you warn that support for the government may wane now that our servicemen and women are in harm’s way and there is the prospect of civilian casualties. But bombing missions carry little risk and this war is being conducted largely beyond the reach of direct reporting, with the mass media unable to assess how precise the raids have been. There is little chance of adverse publicity, alongside the potential to make political capital at the expense of the Labour party. The prime minister surely has no idea whether his actions will weaken or strengthen Islamic State, let alone contribute to a broader settlement in Syria.
Jem Whiteley
Oxford
• Stop bombing Syria, say the placards, but we are not bombing Syria; we are bombing Isis. In our broadcasts to the Syrian people we should make this clear and we should apologise for any incidental deaths of and injuries to innocent Syrians, in addition to explaining how vile the Isis regime is and why we are attacking it. Jeremy Corbyn says we should not bomb Isis because we have no adequate plan for what is to follow. Nor have we, but we should start forming one. In the second world war we bombed Germany for years while working out a plan, testing it, training the troops necessary for its execution, accumulating the necessary military hardware. The fact that something necessary will be difficult is no reason for abandoning it
Francis Jones
London
• The Airwars project (airwars.org/) logging air strikes against terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq reports that Syria has already seen almost 3,000 coalition bombings, compared to 5,653 in the much longer Iraq campaign. The coalition estimates total Isis casualties for the whole period number at an improbably high 23,000. However, the same sources estimate that between 700 and 2,100 civilians also died in these raids. Human rights groups claim the latter figure may actually be 1,000 higher. On that basis at least 10% of airstrike casualties are non-combatants.
Bryn Jones
University of Bath
• Advocates of bombing Isis in Syria claim UN resolution 2249 has fulfilled the Labour conference requirement of UN authorisation for bombing (27 November). This is patently untrue. Resolution 2249 did not invoke chapter 7 of the UN charter, which is the only way the UN can authorise such military intervention and, on the contrary, it reaffirmed the principles of the charter and “its respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and unity of all states”. The “necessary measures” it calls for must be “in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations charter”, which bombing in a foreign state without chapter 7 authorisation patently is not. Intervention could be legal in the case of self-defence – but this applies only to states, and the Syrian state has not attacked us. If advocates of intervention do not agree with the Labour conference’s condition of “clear and unambiguous authorisation for such a bombing campaign from the United Nations”, then they should simply say so, rather than trying to distort the very clear legal picture.
Dr Harry Hayball
London
• I note that the government refused to disclose its legal advice. This alone should have alerted Hilary Benn and others. Indeed, David Cameron, in his earlier statement on Isis, did not rely upon the resolution but instead claimed the right of self-defence. I suggest that he did not rely upon the resolution at that time because he had received legal advice that it did not authorise military action.
Professor Ian Grigg-Spall
Whitstable, Kent
• As you say, Cameron’s case still doesn’t stack up. Neither does the oratory of Hilary Benn. We don’t want oratory. I can go to the theatre for that, or is that what some MPs think parliament is? We had decent sober analysis from Corbyn showing in detail how the case does not stack up for us bombing in Syria. As a social scientist I support that approach and your suggestions for including monitoring events, with the right to stop the bombing.
Professor John Haworth
Visiting Professor in Wellbeing, University of Bolton
How many civilians have already been killed killed? We do not know, nor do the American and French governments offer us any figures. Curiously, however, we already have estimates by a couple of anti-Assad Syrian groups of the number killed by Russian airstrikes since September: 400-500, including about 100 children. There is nothing new in the absence of official western figures. Unofficial estimates provide the explanation.
According to an academic study in 2013, the attack on Iraq in 2003 led to 461,000 deaths. The Lancet has given a figure of over 600,000, and some others have put it at more than a million. If we in the West really value Iraqi and Syrian lives, we should be demanding of our governments that they give us estimates of the numbers they have killed or are likely to kill by going to war in these countries. Such enormous destructive potential should not be casually brushed off in the manner of US Commander Tommy Franks: “We don’t do body counts”.
In the light of such glaring double standards, is it altogether surprising that many young Islamic radicals are indifferent to some western societies or the lives of our citizens?
Brian McClinton
Lisburn, Belfast
• The pretext for the bombing of Syria is to defend British streets and to show solidarity with the people of Paris, but this just provides an opportunity to pursue the real cause of the war: a renewal of Britain’s subordinate relationship with the United States. We are now fully committed to support the US and its Turkish, UAR and Saudi allies in a struggle with Russia and its Syrian and Iranian allies for domination of the Middle East. This, not the threat from Isis, is the real motive behind British intervention. It is essentially another phase in the war that was originally launched in 2003, supported by many of the same politicians, but this time telling different lies.
Cameron’s 70,000 moderate fighters will be remembered as his WMD moment, the lie that defines his war. The difference this time, of course, is that after the British defeats in Basra and Helmand and the subsequent cuts to the armed forces, the US regards British involvement as merely of symbolic value.
John Newsinger
Professor of modern history, Bath Spa University
