The revelation that British pilots have been involved in air strikes in Syria (Fallon to face MPs over British involvement in Syria air strikes, 18 July) raises the questions, as you have reported, whether ministers have misled the House of Commons or acted in breach of the parliamentary resolution that we should not take military action in Syria. When the matter is debated, Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, will probably regret his distasteful suggestion that “we’re fighting a new Battle of Britain” (RAF steps up Iraq and Syria spying missions in ‘new Battle of Britain’, theguardian.com).
But this is not only a question of parliamentary propriety. If we are considering an air war in Syria, there are some other important questions to be answered. Is it legal? Will it be effective? Is it likely to have beneficial political effects in the longer term?
My answer to all three questions would be no. I have seen no attempt to argue that it would be legal or effective, and the only beneficial political effects I’ve seen mentioned concern solidarity with the US. Oddly enough, I have yet to see a British minister stand up in parliament and say that we have to go to war because that is what the Americans would like.
Oliver Miles
London
• I note the involvement of UK military personnel in attacks on Syria, against the decision taken by parliament in 2013, which was not to engage militarily in Syria. Which part of the decision taken by parliament has not been understood? A full investigation and explanation of the UK’s involvement needs to be undertaken, with repercussions for those judged to have acted against the wishes of parliament. The PM and foreign secretary should be held to account for any involvement of military personnel in attacks in Syria, and any minister found to have ignored the decisions taken by parliament should be forced to resign.
Robert Wall
Surbiton, Surrey
