Hello!
The terrible attacks in Paris last weekend have shocked the whole of Europe. The responsibility has been placed on ISIS, and there is a renewed determination to defeat them by any means, especially among the French. Most dramatically, Francois Hollande has openly defied the US refusal to cooperate with Russia, and has joined forces with President Putin and President Assad in their campaign against ISIS in Syria, calling upon the US to do the same.
Syria cannot boast of great natural resources. But through an accident of geography, it is has the bad luck to be located in a strategically critical location, on the crossroads of the great trade routes between China and Europe, and between Africa and Asia. Consequently, many disparate groups have taken a keen interest in its future.
It is complicated. The near neighbors of Syria include the rival regional powers of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey, all of whom vie for influence in the region. Other neighbors include the warring factions of Israel and Palestine, the wreckage of Iraq, and the lesser states of Lebanon and Jordan. On a wider scale, these different countries are more or less aligned with the great rival powers of Russia and the USA. As a result, there are now militant brigades funded by Saudi from as far afield as Morocco in the West, and Chechnya in the East, Ukraine in the North and Yemen in the South, claiming to belong variously to the loose federations of ISIS, Al Qaeda or the Free Syrian Army. These groups are clashing across the country with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah and the Iraqi army. The skies are patrolled by Russian jets, and the US drops weapons more or less at random to any group claiming to fight the government, whilst Turkey wrestles with the Kurds on the northern borders. At this point, it would hardly be surprising to find a brigade of Kalahari Bushmen fighting the Inuit in the suburbs of Damascus.
Amid this chaos and turmoil, should the UK join in? And if so – on whose side?
There is one more group which I haven’t mentioned which has an interest in the country’s future – the Syrians themselves. What do they think? I know a few Syrians, students and doctors currently living in this country. They oppose the President, Assad, and would like to see him go – but they are even more bitter about the USA who, like most Syrians, they blame for the rise of ISIS. Above all, they want a ceasefire, and a peaceful settlement. Other more bloodthirsty Syrians in this country try to disrupt Stop The War meetings, and seek to persuade Cameron to bomb the Syrian government. But these are ex-patriots. What do we know of Syrians on the ground?
It turns out – quite a lot. For many years, before and during the war, international polling organisations based in the UK, Germany, Canada and other places have conducted opinion polls in the country. The results will probably come as a surprise to those who have swallowed the pro-war propaganda. Before the war, Assad had the support of around 50% of the population. (To put this into context, Cameron’s rating is currently 41%, Obama is at 45% and Vladimir Putin at 89%, all according to Western based polling organisations). When the war started his approval ratings increased to 70% – because although many Syrians greatly dislike Assad, they feared that violent revolution would lead to destruction and chaos. The latest poll, back in July, puts Assad at 47%, across the country as a whole, and support for the Free Syrian Army (the “moderate” Syrian opposition) at around 30%. In other words, Syrians back Assad against the “Moderate rebels” by a clear majority. In a free and fair election, Assad would win a handsome victory.
I am constantly shocked and astonished at people I know who passionately oppose Assad, and believe that his violent overthrow is a step towards peace and democracy. This belief is completely irrational, because we have tried this experiment several times. We were told that Saddam was a monster and that he must be overthrown to save his people – the once prosperous, secular Iraq is now a smoldering radioactive ruin overrun by terrorists. Not convinced, we tried the same thing in Libya – with the same result. The same thing happened in Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, Sudan, and others.
Many liberals appear to sincerely believe that if only we bomb a country hard enough for long enough, peace and democracy are sure to follow. But however attractive this may sound as a theory, observation has repeatedly proven that in fact the outcome is invariably wholesale slaughter and ruin. It is often said that “we must do something”. But clearly if all we can do is wreak death and destruction, doing nothing is the better option. This experience is enshrined in law. It is a war crime to support the violent overthrow of a government, however much you may dislike them, regardless of whether it is a democracy. And people who think the law is an ass should look at Iraq, and Libya, and… and think again. To support the Free Syrian Army in their attempt to overthrow the government of Syria is to support a criminal policy, against the wishes of the clear majority of the population, whose most probable outcome is millions of deaths and total destruction and ruin. It is deeply ironic that many people who think of themselves as liberals, and who passionately and sincerely wish to see peace and democracy prevail, support policies that are in fact criminal, antidemocratic, murderous and destructive.
There is clear evidence that the US and it’s allies have been arming, funding training and supporting ISIS in the hope that they will succeed in toppling Assad, who they have branded a monster. Over 80% of Syrians blame the US for the rise of ISIS. The Iraqi government have repeatedly complained that the US has been giving airdrops of weapons to ISIS in Iraq; the ISIS controlled areas in Syria have all got routes directly back to NATO member Turkey, whose president has repeatedly called for the overthrow of Assad; US bombing raids which pretend to target ISIS have in fact destroyed the Syrian civilian infrastructure and enabled ISIS to transport oil from Syria back to Turkey to fund the war.
Russia by contrast has deployed serious weaponry against ISIS including multiple cruise missiles, which have destroyed thousands of ISIS military assets, and turned the tide of the war. ISIS are now on the run from areas they once controlled, and their only hope is to take refuge in the “safe zone” that the US are attempting to create on the border of Turkey. The Free Syrian Army have joined the Russian forces, sharing intelligence to guide bombing raids and defeat ISIS, who they see as a greater enemy than Assad. And the French, who have been following US policy to their enormous cost have now decided to join the Russian anti-ISIS coalition too.
So where does the UK Government stand in this? Do we really need more bombs? Is that the best way to improve the situation of millions of ordinary civilians? To me it is clear that more bombs are not going to help this situation. Ordinary people do not support religious fanatics; in Syria, Christians, Jews and Muslims have peacefully coexisted for centuries. And anyway, we are far beyond the point where the the most urgent need of the civilian population is more bombs. Surely it is obvious that the best use of our resources would be to provide food, shelter and medical supplies to the victims of the war, whilst engaging all our diplomatic skills at negotiating a ceasefire and all our influence in cutting off support from their western backers. ISIS thrives on war; in a climate of peace and financial security they will wither and die.