It is far more complex than yes or no
It is far more complex than yes or no. It is not just about self-defence or will we get targeted. Like it or not, we are a permanent member of the UN security council, so it is not unreasonable that we should be involved in a campaign that is almost unprecedented in regaining land from terrorists.
Further to that, we have had a dirty hand in the Middle East for more than a century, and that Syria wasn’t directly ours has little weight in the argument given Sykes/Picot.
There is also the case of the UN charter and all nations’ obligations to people being persecuted and tortured.
Where Cameron’s game falls over is the increasing wooliness of his case once it gets to taking and holding land and settling the governance of Syria. There is the huge complication of Russian involvement, with its polarisation of players such as Iran. So when Isil are driven out (by whom?), who occupies the land taken back? It’s relatively simple in Iraq but horrendously complex in Syria.
I don’t believe that Cameron and his crew have the first idea what will happen after, notionally, Isil are driven out.
My proposal is that a UN resolution should be passed specifically authorising the taking by force of territory held by Isil to be followed by a ceasefire and areas to be established under UN protection, while talks continue without fighting.
John Ellis, Carmarthenshire
Diplomacy and a long-term strategy for resolving the conflict must be our priority
If – and only if – military action is a component of a much broader approach, would I be in favour of airstrikes. Diplomacy and a long-term strategy for resolving the conflict must be our priority, with airstrikes as a supplementary, short-term approach in support of our international partners.
I don’t think diplomatic measures and airstrikes are mutually exclusive. If the option is one or the other, then we should opt for the non-violent option.
I think Cameron has argued the case for airstrikes but left too many unanswered questions about what other actions we will take to address the longer-term issues and consequences of military action.
I am unsurprised by Corbyn’s stance as he has made it explicity clear that he does not support military action consistently. The shock and outrage being reported is media spin or the PLP trying to use the situation to their own political ends.
Anonymous, Glasgow
War really does breed war
Military action in terms of troops on the ground will be more targeted and accurate in eradicating Isis but bombs are indiscriminate and children are the collateral damage. War really does breed war. And we are joining ranks with France and Russia who are unafraid of the consequences of bombings … and the processes to build peace and stability. The refugee crisis is inherently linked to solutions towards peace and also Isis. Bombing Syria is like killing a mosquito with a bulldozer.
Ambreen, Altrincham
We should be pursuing military action in Syria, but not airstrikes alone
We should be pursuing military action in Syria, but not airstrikes alone, a policy which all the politicians are implementing for votes and popularity in the full knowledge that innocent people are being killed mostly.
We should be working under a UN mandate to create safe havens for refugees and international aid agencies under UN military protection.
Surgical airstrikes and guerrilla raids by elite troops on Isis targets including cutting off of economic means of support (eg oil tankers/disabling of oil fields/destruction of drugs outside regional borders – and providing alternative economic opportunities to drug-producers eg exchange for improved local facilities/healthcare/machinery schools etc). Confiscation of international Isis wealth holdings across international frontiers (backed by the UN) in secret bank accounts or of those of proven backers (perhaps in Saudi Arabia or Qatar even).
Brokering with anti-Isis regional powers (even if unpalatable human rights records) for their complicit participation with the above and to secure guarantees on moving towards improving their human rights records over time.
David Cameron has made adequate arguments for military action, but not justifiably for the ineffective action he is cynically taking with airstrikes alone. Amazingly, Corbyn is right in this sense. The Labour party is divided.
J Bell, York
Airstrikes are doing very little but helping to recruit to Isis
There is turmoil in the area. With no coordinated plan. Every nation is pursuing its own goals. Our participation would only add to the mayhem, especially seeing as there is no credible strategic plan. Two years ago we wanted to join the rebels and now we’re wanting to fight one faction of the rebels. Our participation will only increase the volunteers from this country wanting to go to Syria or else to cause security problems here.
Airstrikes are doing very little but helping to recruit to Isis.
This figure of 70,000 moderate rebels has suddenly appeared out of nowhere and is widely disputed. Is there a definition of what constitutes a moderate rebel?
David Cameron’s plans don’t indicate how this will bring the war to an end or how this will defeat Isis. The plans don’t show how this will improve the chaotic situation. The plans don’t include safeguard measures to ensure that unintended consequences [won’t] occur. The plans rely on wishful thinking that the so-called 70,000 moderates will overthrow the Syrian army – totally implausible. The plans, just like in Libya, show very little help in restoring the country to some sort of normality after we have bombed it to bits – thus leaving a vacuum for anyone to come in and take over.
Labour should oppose bombing at all costs. They need to stand firm. Those who oppose Jeremy Corbyn should not use this moment to try to undermine his leadership.
In the end we are talking about the killing of many innocent people as well as a few terrorists, and for every innocent person killed there are likely to be new converts to the terrorists.
John Hunt, County Durham
I doubt we could be at more risk than we already are
All in all, I’m not happy with any of the options available. Having said that, I’d accept an extension of bombing to Syria.
The first question is should we be pursuing military action in Iraq (against Isis)? If the bombing campaign in Iraq is being successful, then it would be illogical not to be bombing in Syria. I doubt we could be at more risk than we already are.
However, we should also be acting to prevent Turkish support for Isis and also Saudi support for Isis. In addition, we should be trying to stabilise the situation in the remainder of Syria, which means living with Assad.
David Cameron has made a good case, but it leaves some big questions unanswered.
As a Labour supporter, I’m pretty embarrassed by the antics of Jeremy Corbyn. He asked a series of questions, but I doubt any realistic answer to any of them would have persuaded him to back bombing, so he is really just playing around.
Anonymous, Inverness
I think Cameron’s administration would lead us into yet another military and humanitarian disaster
The war machine is a racket and a means of corporate profiteering through the manufacture and sale of arms. If our government was serious about dealing with Isis it would not be supporting the regime indirectly by selling weapons to Isis-sympathetic states such as Saudi Arabia.
Recent evidence has shown that up to 90% of people killed by drones are innocent civilians. This renders bombing ineffective in dealing with alleged terrorists while strengthening resentment of western powers among indigenous populations, ultimately enabling Isis to recruit.
The first thing our government should do is stop producing and selling weapons, while pressuring its allies to do the same. This would cut off supplies to rogue states. Without this action Britain has no moral high ground and is indeed a perpetrator of terror itself.
The second thing our government should do is pressurise states such as Turkey to ban the import/export of oil on behalf of Isis to weaken its means of financing terror in the first place.
I think Cameron’s administration would lead us into yet another military and humanitarian disaster, having learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan, while needlessly putting British soldiers’ and Syrian civilians’ lives at risk. If Mr Cameron had to actually execute military activity and put his own life at risk, I’m sure he’d think twice about it.
Jeremy Corbyn is a principled and just man surrounded by war-thirsty politicians in both Labour and Conservative ranks. I wish him all the luck in the world as he bravely stands for peace.
Andrew Walton, Birmingham
