Why Syria must not be attacked by UK forces.

Ever since Tony Blair decided to go into Bosnia, the British government has embarked on numerous wars in foreign lands, and it is impossible to point to any single benefit for the UK.

It is well known that Tony Blair was George W Bush’s “pet poodle”, when it came to foreign invasions, and this ridiculous aim of attacking anywhere in the world in the name of “a war on terrorism” has not gone away.

I am finding it highly suspicious that William Hague, Cameron, Miliband and Blair, continue to promote the need for British military action in a country, which for all intensive purposes, has absolutely nothing to do with the UK…or any other Western country.

Assad is not a saint, and if his people chose to remove him: fair enough! But what has that got to do with the UK? On what legal basis do we have the right to “bomb” a foreign country, even if we do not approve of the actions of its leadership!

We screwed up before, when our politicians told us about a need to strike first, because of “Weapons of mass destruction”, until today, the weapons have never been found!

Now we are using the new excuse of “Chemical Weapons” when we have no absolutely zero proof of who used them.

I know lots of people rightly abhor the idea of any country using chemical weapons on its people, and I am one of them. But this war in Syria has been happening for 2 ½ years: during which time 100,000’s of people have been killed or injured and over a million Syrians have fled to the neighbouring countries. So I don’t really understand this moral argument which implies “it’s okay to kill with bullets and rockets, but not to kill with Chemicals!” – In my book killing is killing!

Syrian politics is not understood by most of us in the west, and the more we hear about what is happening and who is involved, the more evident it is that we do not have enough knowledge to pick sides – therefore it is wrong to do it!

We have to be honest with ourselves, this romantic idea of America and the UK acting as “Global Policemen”, coming over the hill at the last minute wearing white hats, is a bit absurd in the current global environment. And let’s also admit we have not been very successful in the Middle East, as we rarely apply the laws of engagement equally. – (As far as the USA and the UK are concerned, the Saudi’s walk on water!)

I will accept, that whilst the Cold war is over, the new global conflict is increasingly between the western democracies and Political Islam, but “bombing” another Islamic country is not going to do anything to address this problem nor reduce the ever increasing divide.

If we look at the problems in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan or Pakistan, it is evidently obvious that whether the West send money or rockets, we never seem able to solve the problems in these countries, and, as in Afghanistan – where we have had troops for more years than the second and first world wars combined – we never leave any of these countries with any form of good-will for what we have done, or tried to do for the people.

Russia and China have the right idea: Let the people sort it out themselves and in the mean time we will try and bring people to the negotiating table. And I have to agree.

We all know that politicians do their jobs because they like power, and the wimpier our technocratic governments become, the more they like to flex their puny muscles. But flexing for the sake of flexing is crazy, and for a government to do it in such an open way, it must have some moral justification, and broad public support, which this attack on Syria doesn’t.

Europe and America are weak, because of our historic wealth and lowest common-denominator democracy. We have education, and we might like the freedom our societies still provide us, but nonetheless, our affluence has made us weak, in comparison to less prosperous societies.

Moreover, we cannot ignore that less-educated, or should I say differently educated people, do not look at life in the same “Fairy-tale” way as we do. Inequality and living in unfair societies is for them the norm.

In many Islamic countries, beheading and stoning is acceptable;, woman do not have rights, yet alone equal rights; and leaders rule is by the gun and intimidation, not the ballot box.

As a westerner, I do not like this type of society, and am strongly opposed to the imposition of “Sharia Law” in my own country. But, and it is a big but, “people get the government they deserve”, and I am afraid, in many Middle East countries, this also applies and we in the west will have to accept it and accommodate for it.

Military action in Syria will only strengthen the aims of the people which we today call “terrorists”. As soon as the first child or woman is killed by a western bomb, hundreds of young boys and girls will join a radical Muslim organisation and start to hate us, this is a fact!

Why do our governments seem to hate Assad so much?

The guy is obviously a tyrannical leader, but he is in control of a country in which, for years: Muslims, Christian’s and Jews have lived in relative peace. I know we have a deep dislike of those accused of being grotesque tryrants, but it is going to do nothing to further western aims, or make a more harmonious society in Syria, by removing a strong leader, Look at Egypt, Libya etc

Strong leadership is not wrong in itself – even if in Europe we don’t like it – Strong leadership is only wrong if it is bad! And then, it is up to the citizens of that country how they are going to change it! Surely, for those of us who believe in democracy, it is for the people to decide, not “foreigners!” And definitely not one of the worlds old global colonists!

Geographically and culturally, Syria is a Middle East problem, and needs to be solved by the peoples of the Middle East.

It is wrong for certain Middle East powers to bribe western politicians into doing their “dirty work”, and it is wrong for our governments to provide such help for financial promises – which can be the only reason our governments are getting involved, (just forget the spin our media is flooding us with!).

There is no moral reason for us to attack Syria, and as much as I condone the use of Chemical weapons, we should not be leading the charge on Assad, or indeed, as the EU suggests, provide military muscle to the fractured opposition.

It is painful for us to see women and children dying, just like it is painful to watch our loved ones suffering from a deadly disease. But we are not the doctors, we don’t have the cure, and if we continue to meddle in things we don’t understand, the chances are we will only succeed in making things worse.

Indeed, our risk is becoming “contaminated” by this conflict, and bringing it home to our own people.