This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/08/syrian-drone-strike-syria-british-isis-cameron-wmd-moment

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Cameron justifies the drone strike in Syria: is this his WMD moment? Cameron justifies the drone strike in Syria: is this his WMD moment?
(about 9 hours later)
It sounded good, but did it sound right? David Cameron’s Commons explanation of the execution of three Britons in Syria eerily recalled Tony Blair on the Iraq war, that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” that posed “an imminent threat” to British national security. It sounded good, but did it sound right? David Cameron’s Commons explanation of the killing of three Britons in Syria eerily recalled Tony Blair on the Iraq war, that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” that posed “an imminent threat” to British national security.
Related: UK forces kill British Isis fighters in targeted drone strike on Syrian cityRelated: UK forces kill British Isis fighters in targeted drone strike on Syrian city
Blair killed stone dead the thesis that such assertions by ministers should be taken on trust. The suspicion has to be that British intelligence had a tag on the suspect Britons for some time and got lucky. British planes had been operating over Syria all summer, with orders to disregard parliament’s veto on military action if targets were of sufficient “value”.Blair killed stone dead the thesis that such assertions by ministers should be taken on trust. The suspicion has to be that British intelligence had a tag on the suspect Britons for some time and got lucky. British planes had been operating over Syria all summer, with orders to disregard parliament’s veto on military action if targets were of sufficient “value”.
As it stands, the visible evidence against them related to events that had already taken place peacefully. The threats appear mere bravado. If not, the more reason for explaining what exactly was the threat, other than “recruitment”.As it stands, the visible evidence against them related to events that had already taken place peacefully. The threats appear mere bravado. If not, the more reason for explaining what exactly was the threat, other than “recruitment”.
Cameron’s lawyers were content that action was essential to prevent what international law recognises as an “occurring or imminent” Article-51 threat, notified to the United Nations. That law envisaged an army moving to cross a frontier, not a 21-year-old Cardiff terrorist. Even so, I doubt if anyone would quarrel with Cameron’s decision were a threat to be specific and ongoing – with ministers knowing about it in advance. But the menace would have to be so great as to justify the near certainty, as indeed happened, that bystanders would also die, as they have in dozens of American drone attacks (in retaliation for no conceivable “threat” to the American people).Cameron’s lawyers were content that action was essential to prevent what international law recognises as an “occurring or imminent” Article-51 threat, notified to the United Nations. That law envisaged an army moving to cross a frontier, not a 21-year-old Cardiff terrorist. Even so, I doubt if anyone would quarrel with Cameron’s decision were a threat to be specific and ongoing – with ministers knowing about it in advance. But the menace would have to be so great as to justify the near certainty, as indeed happened, that bystanders would also die, as they have in dozens of American drone attacks (in retaliation for no conceivable “threat” to the American people).
It is the likelihood of an attack, not a threat of one, that must be substantiated. Asymmetric wars may demand new rules of engagement. But new rules must be reasoned openly.It is the likelihood of an attack, not a threat of one, that must be substantiated. Asymmetric wars may demand new rules of engagement. But new rules must be reasoned openly.
Cameron’s covering news of the executions with an announcement on refugee relief looks suspiciously like a guilty conscience. Even at some risk to intelligence, he has absolutely no interest in Blair-like obfuscation.Cameron’s covering news of the executions with an announcement on refugee relief looks suspiciously like a guilty conscience. Even at some risk to intelligence, he has absolutely no interest in Blair-like obfuscation.
Related: Ruhul Amin and Reyaad Khan: the footballer and the boy who wanted to be first Asian PMRelated: Ruhul Amin and Reyaad Khan: the footballer and the boy who wanted to be first Asian PM
The root of this trouble is an ongoing failure to define a “war on terror”. Calling an embryo caliphate “an existential threat to Britain’s national security”, as has Cameron, is not just an absurdity. It implies a government with no confidence in the resilience of the British state against a genuine military threat. It suggests ministers have lost all sense of proportion in matters of security.The root of this trouble is an ongoing failure to define a “war on terror”. Calling an embryo caliphate “an existential threat to Britain’s national security”, as has Cameron, is not just an absurdity. It implies a government with no confidence in the resilience of the British state against a genuine military threat. It suggests ministers have lost all sense of proportion in matters of security.
Crazy youths who go abroad to fight in other people’s wars and make bloodcurdling threats against British people certainly merit drastic countermeasures. But they are criminals who would kill and maim. They do not threaten the state or its security. Nor do they justify the suspension of the rule of law or the traditions of open accountability. To claim otherwise is simply to concede victory to the enemy.Crazy youths who go abroad to fight in other people’s wars and make bloodcurdling threats against British people certainly merit drastic countermeasures. But they are criminals who would kill and maim. They do not threaten the state or its security. Nor do they justify the suspension of the rule of law or the traditions of open accountability. To claim otherwise is simply to concede victory to the enemy.
The proper question to ask of these actions is, who has benefited? The answer has to be the forces of violence in the Middle East. They need no further encouragement from Britain. As for the claim that drone strikes in Syria are the best way to tackle the refugee crisis at source, no one can believe that.The proper question to ask of these actions is, who has benefited? The answer has to be the forces of violence in the Middle East. They need no further encouragement from Britain. As for the claim that drone strikes in Syria are the best way to tackle the refugee crisis at source, no one can believe that.