David Cameron may have secured a large majority in the Commons to go to war in Syria, but the UK national newspapers are anything but convinced about this decision.
There was an obvious lack of full-hearted support in several of Thursday’s leading articles in which grave reservations about the venture were aired.
However, there was widespread admiration from political commentators, and in editorials, for the speech by Labour’s shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn,
The Times, despite its firm backing for air strikes against Isis in Syria, wondered where it would lead, pointing out that “there is no enthusiasm in parliament or the country for the deployment of troops.”
Then it asked two pertinent questions: “When does British bombing end? When can victory over Isis be declared?”
And in calling for the mission to “be framed realistically” the paper said: “It is not reasonable to expect Raqqa to fall without the deployment of troops. Concentrated force can, however, weaken Isis to such a degree that it becomes less of a global danger.”
The Times believes that it would choke off recruits to Isis because “no one rushes to join a losing army. But it was critical of Cameron for denouncing Labour opponents of intervention as terrorist sympathisers. That was an error, it said, before concluding:
“A civilised world cannot tolerate a global terror organisation that so actively attempts to infiltrate the lives of young people and slaughter its citizens. It must be challenged.”
The Daily Telegraph also thought the prime minister’s terrorist sympathisers’ “remark was probably rash” yet “far from unjustified.” On a positive note, it was pleased with the speech by Hilary Benn, arguing that it exposed the counter arguments of his leader, Jeremy Corbyn, as “worthless.”
It praised Benn’s “humane pragmatism” in delivering “a towering moral argument for intervention... which may qualify him as a future leader.”
The Telegraph reflected the ambivalence about going to war by accepting that “a significant number of people, the vast majority decent and honourable, will have reservations. Decisions of war and peace almost always involve a degree of uncertainty, and it is right that this one was debated fully.”
Those reservations were even clearer in the Daily Mail, which rightly said it had never made a secret about them. It understood “the powerful moral force of the call to stand by our closest allies - America... and France... Yet it would be otiose to deny that we still have very serious doubts.” It said:
“Even in yesterday’s debate, after months to prepare, Mr Cameron failed to convince that his all-too-vague war aims are achievable by the means he proposes.
Indeed, all too often, there were uncomfortable echoes of Tony Blair, dodgy dossiers and the Iraq fiasco in the prime minister’s evasiveness, bluster and apparent willingness to twist the truth...
The crucial question remains: how can he neutralise IS without ground troops being sent in - something every military expert says will be necessary, but which was ruled out in last night’s motion?
In a response chillingly reminiscent of Mr Blair’s warnings about Iraq’s (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction, he says intelligence sources suggest an army of 70,000 ‘moderate’ Syrians stands ready to complete the RAF’s work.
In fact, this supposed army is made up of more than 100 rebel factions, geographically scattered and often fighting each other. Their only common purpose is toppling President Assad, whom our new-found Russian allies are determined to keep in power.
Which brings us to the greatest long-term obstacle to peace in Syria - the tangled web of feuding factions...
As for how much difference Britain can make, with our mere 16 warplanes, isn’t there a whiff of Blairite spin about Mr Cameron’s extravagant claims?...
If Mr Cameron has learned anything from the power vacuums left by the Iraq war and his own bombing of Libya (now a basket-case of anarchy and arms dealing), he had better start planning it now. If not, he really does risk being remembered as the true heir to Blair.”
The Daily Express was anything but gung-ho. Citing its own poll, which asked whether people supported air strikes, it said the result (64% in favour to 36% against) showed that “the British people have not reached a consensus” on the issue.
“ In times of danger”, it said, “we look to our leaders... We must put our faith in [Cameron] and his judgment... we have little choice but to trust our prime minister and our military to keep us safe.”
The Guardian, in an editorial headlined Cameron won the day, but his case still doesn’t stack up, said: “We support the cause of defeating Isis, and we do not reject military action to that end. But we do not believe that the case for the kind of intervention that David Cameron put to parliament has been made.”
It contended that “the prime minister’s case is based on some heroic assumptions about the numbers, temper and unity of local Syrian and Kurdish ground troops, without whom the military defeat of Isis is inconceivable.”
And it pointed to a YouGov poll which “showed that public opinion has been rapidly losing confidence in the case too, which is ominous for the government.”
The Guardian was unimpressed with Corbyn’s “sincere but laboured speech against bombing.” He “may be gaining public support for his scepticism about bombing, but he is also haemorrhaging public support as a leader.”
As for the mission itself, the paper thought public opinion “will not stand for mass civilian casualties” and Isis “is adept at concealing itself behind human shields and it will do so.” It concluded:
“Mission creep is a real possibility. MPs should put a sunset clause into the commitment in Syria and be ready to withdraw their support if progress is not made.
Britain must also accept that more war means more refugees and an increased obligation to do more for them and to take a larger share of them.”
The Daily Mirror was entirely unconvinced by Cameron’s case for war: “None of the objections to bombing Syria have vanished and none of the questions about holes in the long-term strategy have been answered.” It said:
“It is an irony that many of the finest speeches in the Commons against raids came from anti-bombing Tories such as Julian Lewis, John Baron and David Davis. And the better ones endorsing action were by pro-bombing Labour rebels including Margaret Beckett, Alan Johnson, Yvette Cooper, Dan Jarvis and especially Hilary Benn.”
The Mirror believed Cameron’s “rush to war remains regrettable and, as Jeremy Corbyn suggested, may smack of fears that public hostility was growing.”
Like the Mail and its writer, Peter Oborne (here), the Mirror was critical of Cameron’s “smearing of opponents as ‘terrorist sympathisers’” regarding it as “shameful” and “gutter politics... that demeaned the holder of the greatest office of state.” The paper concluded:
“Bombers and anti-bombers must respect each other’s views instead of fighting together and Cameron should recognise it is never too late to apologise. Now more than ever he must speak for the entire country - not a Tory faction.”
Overall, reading all the editorials, it is clear that Cameron’s decision to bomb Isis in Syria is not only a military risk. The equivocal stance of the national press suggests that if he suffers any kind of reverse there will be a political price to pay.
