Like Jeremy Corbyn, John Baron was right about Iraq and (as was far, far rarer) right about Libya. Listen to them both:
Amid all the debate and emotion expended over Syria last week, there remains a terrible sense of déjà vu pervading this most difficult of problems.
It is the sense of a government – and a nation – repeating previous errors by committing to air strikes without a comprehensive, long-term strategy involving regional powers and allies.
I have just returned from a visit to key capitals across the Middle East with the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, where we spoke to government, diplomatic and military officials in Tehran, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh.
Those conversations confirmed to me that, in the absence of a proper strategy informed by better on-the-ground knowledge and intelligence, there is a real danger that any military intervention goes the same way of Iraq, Afghanistan post-2006, and Libya. It is a message we must heed.
In those previous military interventions, we vastly underestimated the complexities of local politics in the countries we were invading.
We took too little account of the difficulty of achieving our aims and the resources we would require.
Sadly, judging from what the Prime Minister said last week in advocating air strikes in Syria, there is little sign that he – or Ministers collectively – have learnt these painful and expensive lessons.
Of course, the UK was appalled by the butchery committed by Islamic State in Paris. What is now required is a sense of calm and clear thinking.
But the Prime Minister’s case for joining was long on emotion and short on strategy – there should have been more detail.
What is needed now is a comprehensive and realistic long-term strategy – both military and non-military – to respond to the IS strategy and the resources to see it through.
Everyone accepts that air strikes alone will not destroy IS. Coalition aircraft – and those of Russia – already crowd the skies.
Our Middle Eastern allies point out that far from a lack of allied aircraft above Syria, the problem is actually a shortage of viable targets on the ground.
Many of these mightily armed machines fly in aerial ‘roundabouts’ over Iraq and Syria but return to base with their weapons unused.
So the addition of British bombs would add little.
What is needed is what has always been needed: local troops to take and hold ground because land gives credibility and sustenance to IS’s cause.
Regrettably, the Prime Minister’s speech added little to identifying and bringing about such a force.
At best, the Government’s belief that 70,000 Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels will fill the void once bombing of IS intensifies should be treated with caution.
At worst, it might be wildly optimistic.
Even if that figure quoted by Mr Cameron last week is accurate, testimony suggests that after five years of conflict, precious few ‘moderates’ remain in Syria.
Indeed, a feature of this civil war has been the speed at which new extremist groups and organisations can spring from the shadows and stake a claim.
It is a bold assumption that the Government’s strategy would prevent this.
The grave risks of military intervention merely clearing the field for the next wave of jihadis should be obvious.
Furthermore, even if one believed sufficient ‘moderates’ existed, this group is riddled with rivalry, as the Americans have found to their cost.
The Prime Minister has sadly forgotten the lessons of Libya, where the anti-Gaddafi forces splintered into a thousand militia the moment the common enemy was defeated.
A fresh civil war has been a result. Syria could easily go the same way.
No 10 claims that air strikes are urgently needed to sit at the ‘top table’ and show solidarity with our key allies, such as France and the US, in their time of need.
Yet our place is guaranteed as a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council. China is not contemplating military action in Syria but is represented at the Vienna talks on the crisis.
But the Prime Minister’s strategy is sadly lacking in another respect.
His proposals do not adequately address the non-military elements to this anti-IS campaign, such as the group’s business and financial links.
Too little has been done to curtail this evil movement’s cashflow and reserves, which form its lifeblood.
More broadly, the Prime Minister said very little last week as to how the Coalition planned to neutralise the poisonous ideology and sectarianism which sustains the extremism of various terrorist groups across the region, including IS, and worldwide.
This is a long-term endeavour but we need to give it much greater impetus.
The short-term effect of British air strikes will be negligible. But as we intervene more, so we become more responsible for events on the ground.
Without a comprehensive strategy, air strikes will simply reinforce the West’s failure in the region generally at a time when there are already too many aircraft chasing too few targets.
Just a few weeks ago, the Foreign Affairs Committee produced a very reasoned and thoughtful report arguing against air strikes in Syria, in the absence of the comprehensive long-term strategy.
I, and other colleagues, still hold to that view. I will oppose this military action in the forthcoming parliamentary vote.
We have stood at this very point before. We have no excuse for setting out on the same tragic, misguided path once more.
Amid all the debate and emotion expended over Syria last week, there remains a terrible sense of déjà vu pervading this most difficult of problems.
It is the sense of a government – and a nation – repeating previous errors by committing to air strikes without a comprehensive, long-term strategy involving regional powers and allies.
I have just returned from a visit to key capitals across the Middle East with the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, where we spoke to government, diplomatic and military officials in Tehran, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh.
Those conversations confirmed to me that, in the absence of a proper strategy informed by better on-the-ground knowledge and intelligence, there is a real danger that any military intervention goes the same way of Iraq, Afghanistan post-2006, and Libya. It is a message we must heed.
In those previous military interventions, we vastly underestimated the complexities of local politics in the countries we were invading.
We took too little account of the difficulty of achieving our aims and the resources we would require.
Sadly, judging from what the Prime Minister said last week in advocating air strikes in Syria, there is little sign that he – or Ministers collectively – have learnt these painful and expensive lessons.
Of course, the UK was appalled by the butchery committed by Islamic State in Paris. What is now required is a sense of calm and clear thinking.
But the Prime Minister’s case for joining was long on emotion and short on strategy – there should have been more detail.
What is needed now is a comprehensive and realistic long-term strategy – both military and non-military – to respond to the IS strategy and the resources to see it through.
Everyone accepts that air strikes alone will not destroy IS. Coalition aircraft – and those of Russia – already crowd the skies.
Our Middle Eastern allies point out that far from a lack of allied aircraft above Syria, the problem is actually a shortage of viable targets on the ground.
Many of these mightily armed machines fly in aerial ‘roundabouts’ over Iraq and Syria but return to base with their weapons unused.
So the addition of British bombs would add little.
What is needed is what has always been needed: local troops to take and hold ground because land gives credibility and sustenance to IS’s cause.
Regrettably, the Prime Minister’s speech added little to identifying and bringing about such a force.
At best, the Government’s belief that 70,000 Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels will fill the void once bombing of IS intensifies should be treated with caution.
At worst, it might be wildly optimistic.
Even if that figure quoted by Mr Cameron last week is accurate, testimony suggests that after five years of conflict, precious few ‘moderates’ remain in Syria.
Indeed, a feature of this civil war has been the speed at which new extremist groups and organisations can spring from the shadows and stake a claim.
It is a bold assumption that the Government’s strategy would prevent this.
The grave risks of military intervention merely clearing the field for the next wave of jihadis should be obvious.
Furthermore, even if one believed sufficient ‘moderates’ existed, this group is riddled with rivalry, as the Americans have found to their cost.
The Prime Minister has sadly forgotten the lessons of Libya, where the anti-Gaddafi forces splintered into a thousand militia the moment the common enemy was defeated.
A fresh civil war has been a result. Syria could easily go the same way.
No 10 claims that air strikes are urgently needed to sit at the ‘top table’ and show solidarity with our key allies, such as France and the US, in their time of need.
Yet our place is guaranteed as a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council. China is not contemplating military action in Syria but is represented at the Vienna talks on the crisis.
But the Prime Minister’s strategy is sadly lacking in another respect.
His proposals do not adequately address the non-military elements to this anti-IS campaign, such as the group’s business and financial links.
Too little has been done to curtail this evil movement’s cashflow and reserves, which form its lifeblood.
More broadly, the Prime Minister said very little last week as to how the Coalition planned to neutralise the poisonous ideology and sectarianism which sustains the extremism of various terrorist groups across the region, including IS, and worldwide.
This is a long-term endeavour but we need to give it much greater impetus.
The short-term effect of British air strikes will be negligible. But as we intervene more, so we become more responsible for events on the ground.
Without a comprehensive strategy, air strikes will simply reinforce the West’s failure in the region generally at a time when there are already too many aircraft chasing too few targets.
Just a few weeks ago, the Foreign Affairs Committee produced a very reasoned and thoughtful report arguing against air strikes in Syria, in the absence of the comprehensive long-term strategy.
I, and other colleagues, still hold to that view. I will oppose this military action in the forthcoming parliamentary vote.
We have stood at this very point before. We have no excuse for setting out on the same tragic, misguided path once more.
"as was far rarer, right about Libya."
ReplyDeleteSpeak for yourself. UKIP was right about Libya.
The Labour Party under Ed Miliband supported that war.
I'll give UKIP that, although the huge majority of the MPs who voted against the war in Libya were Labour, and the rest included neither Douglas Carswell nor Mark Reckless. But yes, UKIP did oppose that war. Supporting it was Miliband's biggest mistake.
Delete