When the government tells you that we can destroy Daesh by bombing them, do not take them at their word. Think about how Daesh came to exist. A group of dissatisfied Muslims who were not happy with the way the West had interfered in the Middle East and created chaos by setting up a group to fight them. So what makes us think that we can defeat an ideology opposed to Western intervention through military intervention?
Until Cameron and the rest of the warmongering Tories (bar seven who voted against the action) decide to face the facts and see that war will not solve war, the conflict will continue and will only intensify. More innocent civilians will be killed in this war that is based on the (understandable) need for revenge than in Paris. So why is it that those slaughtered in Paris are humanised and seen as victims whilst the many equally innocent Syrians killed by our bombs will be labeled unavoidable losses. We have the power to stop the fate that befell Parisians befalling many others, why would we choose to inflict death on innocent civilians? It is not as if there are simpler nonviolent ways of defeating Daesh.
How about we cut off the arms link we have to Saudi Arabia?. As if using British weapons to execute its own citizens wasn’t bad enough, the Saudis also give arms made in our country to Daesh. We have the power to disarm Daesh (and disarm the brutal Saudis at the same time) as easily as placing a trade embargo on Saudi Arabia. If only Fallon had put his morals ahead of money.Yes, this will not remove the threat that Daesh currently poses but at the very least it will prevent it from being able to gain any more strength. This is just one of the diplomatic ways in which we can help solve the Syrian problem. What Daesh fears more than anything else are peace talks. When confronted with logical thinkers, from all faiths, Daesh’s pleas for recruits will flat. Their simple, incorrect way of thinking will be made even clearer to everyone than it already is. People say that Daesh will not sit down to negotiate. How on earth will we ever know if we do not try. Cameron calls war a last resort, but there are so many more logical alternatives that have not been tried.
There are other long-standing issues that have led to the creation of the conflict in Iraq and Syria that need to be solved before we can have peace. Bombing solves none of them. A recent study into the conflict found that one of the major causes of it was climate change. Like Daesh, climate change is a threat not just to Syrians, but to all of us as well. In fact, it is a much larger threat. Left to its own devices, climate change will wreck our planet and will continue to create conflict. We need to take action now to stop the worst of its effects being felt worldwide. Yet our government continues to attack the environment and is looking for a lax deal at COP21. If we take action on climate change, we can prevent the sort of droughts and food shortages that are taking place in Syria. We can ensure that everyone can afford to eat a full, healthy diet and that they have access to clean, safe water. in this way, we will simultaneously improve Syrians’ standard of living and reduce their discontentment with their society (not their government, which is fully deserving of all contempt) and so the chances of them revolting or joining a group like Daesh decreased drastically.
Another root cause of the current mess in Syria is the discontentment that ordinary Muslims feel in Europe. With anti-Islam parties such as UKIP, Pegida and others gaining support across the continent, it is no wonder that more and more Muslims do not feel at one with their communities. If you were described as a “swarm” by the leader of a country that would then give you refuge, it is hard to feel particularly sympathetic towards the people of the country when their elected representative has dehumanised you.
There are solutions to the Syrian crisis. Ones that have the potential to make the country thrive under a democratic government. Unfortunately for Hilary Benn, these solutions are a little more complex than “Daesh = bad, bombs = no bad people” no matter how eloquently he phrases it.
9 Comments Add yours
Hear Hear, Daesh would have far less recruits if the West would stop killing innocent civilians.
If Saudi doesn’t want Daesh to infiltrate it’s country and rule by Sharia law then perhaps they should help stop the problem in it’s tracks by not supplying money and weapons as well as start recognising that women are people too. There needs to be many changes of attitude towards women and human rights abuses.
Yes,it would be a good idea for the UK to stop putting money first and pushing for arms contracts. Having said that, the Saudis would just buy elsewhere and plenty of companies would be only too happy to supply.
The UK electorate are supposed to be represented by their MP’s and in this instance (as many others) it’s just not the case. Everyone against this continuation of conflict should email their MP and ask them to call for a new vote in which the MP’s vote according to their constituent’s wishes and not according to any party line.
We’ve seen the effect of the Taliban in Afghanistan.and the rule of the Mullah’s in Iraq. If we carry on this way we’ll see that kind of Government in the Middle East and the repression of the people will be our fault. The people there are ordinary, normal people anxious to get on with their lives. It would cost us nothing to be at peace with them except the profit in some Arms manufacturers bank account.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Completely agree. It’s as though our MPs have forgotten about the fellowship of humanity
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have highlighted a couple or more issues I found from your post, the first problem I had highlighted was where you had said pretty much that ISIS’s “ideology [is] opposed to Western intervention”.
This is untrue.
Rather ISIS is completely and encouragingly in favour of its enemies boots on the ground, and if you had watched it’s propaganda rap video where the group had called on a attack on New York, the German rapper in the video had said: “To the enemies of Allah, where are your troops? We can no longer wait,” therefore showing ISIS is not only in favour of its enemies boots on the ground fighting the group, but they ‘can no longer wait’ to fight against them.
Another issues I had found from this post is where you had pretty much said that ‘Saudi Arabia is using British weapons to execute its citizens’. Not only have you not cited a source for this claim but when I think of ‘British weapons’, I do not think of swords which we commonly are lead to believe that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia uses to behead its citizens (granted some of which are criminals). I think of gun. And the thought of Britain exporting swords out to Saudi Arabia to execute its citizens does not click. You would have to some reliable sources to get that to click.
That is not the only issue I had with this post regarding Saudi Arabia, another was where you had claimed that Saudi Arabia gives British arms it has received to ISIS, I think this is bordering conspiracy and is a product of imagination, unless of course you can prove to me otherwise.
Moving on from Saudi Arabia, you had said that ‘there are solutions to the Syrian crisis that have the potential to make the country thrive under a democratic government’.
I have a couple of problems with this sentiment and it involves… Islam and the Syrians. What if, let us say. The majority of Syrians do not at all want to live in a “democracy” but live in total Islamic law, for they see democracy as incompatible with their religion and their values?
Do we then FORCE democracy on a population as the west had tried with Afghanistan, Libya, etc?
WHEN will it be acceptable to allow Muslims to live under a pluralistic Islamic society where the Muslim live willingly under Muslim laws and the Christian regions under the governments protection can have their own law courts, and so on? A government free from corruption and interest banking, a government who are not puppets to the west? Or could that never be a solution, but always a problem?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Daesh want western boots on the ground. Why? So they can show how the West has interfered in the Middle East yet again in their propaganda. This will only draw more fighters into Syria and ultimately, will lead to more deaths on all sides. Say we somehow bomb Daesh into oblivion. There will be immense damage done to Syria and as it stands, there is no plan to pull out properly. Hence a new power vacuum will be created in the chaos and a new group of extremists will rise claiming again that the Western infidels have ruined the Islamic nation.
I am not the only one who thinks that Daesh is getting funding from Arab nations. Jeremy Corbyn, elected leader of the Labour party says so too. He has been elected with the biggest mandate in the party’s history. Clearly something in his point has resonated. ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-arms-sales-to-the-middle-east-are-probably-fuelling-isis-says-jeremy-corbyn-10364998.html ). I understand that this is not a concrete source but I really do not think that it is possible to have an in depth, scientific analysis of Daesh’s flow of weapons in the current chaos.
I cannot say that I speak on behalf of the Syrian people but I can speak based on logic. I don’t think that any Syrian would want any kind of Islamic dictatorship enforced after having lived through both Assad’s tyranny and then Daesh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This touches on everything I have read about Syria. The main narrative around bombing is that 1)people who don’t support bombing are being too simple, nieve or soft hearted
2)people who do support bombing are brave and just want to protect us.
When actually, in my experience
1) people who don’t support bombing have taken that view because they HAVE looked in to it and they know it can’t possibly be effective…it is a major root cause.
2)People who do support bombing are not regarding Syrian civilians as humans like them, they are unrealistic about what some explosions will achieve, and they don’t consider the vested interests the West and Russia have in what they are doing.
There is no vested interest in not wanting more innocent people to die.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I completely agree with you. Ending the conflict in Syria must not involve killing Syrians otherwise what’s the point? Would very much like the government to have a rethink on this issue
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is disgusting how one megalomaniac clinging to power he loves can live with destroying a beautiful country that i have had the honour to visit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It really is sad, isn’t it? If you don’t mind me asking, when did you visit? I’m curious to hear about how it was before the war.
It’s a tragedy. Unfortunately our actions will most likely cement his dominance for many more decades.