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/2013/aug/31/observer-editorial-syria-air-strike-no-benefit

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

Version 0 Version 1
Syria: an air strike will have no practical benefit Syria: an air strike will have no practical benefit
(17 days later)
Many words beginning with P swirl through the Syrian debacle. Try principle, perplexity, posturing, poison – and politics – for starters. But first on the P list is the simplest concept of all. Here's practicality, the business of initiating a policy that delivers clear objectives and makes obvious sense. How can you support proposals lurching from on high that address neither of those imperatives? Britain will not join in the bombing of Syria. Barack Obama, after many contortions, has chosen to wait and ask Congress. That is because, practically, there are no good options.Many words beginning with P swirl through the Syrian debacle. Try principle, perplexity, posturing, poison – and politics – for starters. But first on the P list is the simplest concept of all. Here's practicality, the business of initiating a policy that delivers clear objectives and makes obvious sense. How can you support proposals lurching from on high that address neither of those imperatives? Britain will not join in the bombing of Syria. Barack Obama, after many contortions, has chosen to wait and ask Congress. That is because, practically, there are no good options.
How many died in the Assad regime's chemical attacks? The UK's mini-dossier put to MPs last Thursday said 330 or so, the fatter US intelligence file cited by Mr Obama said nearly 1,500. One round of claims and responsibilities was described as "highly likely", another as "compelling"; but in a world where we (and Edward Snowden) know that intelligence comes shared, such dislocations bring their own doubts in train. Intelligence does not tell us who, practically, calls the shots in Damascus, whether Assad, as he often seems, is a mere frontman. Intelligence does not tell us how Syria's civil war can be ended. Intelligence did not predict that, a decade after the invasion of Iraq, continuing civil conflict would be on track to claim more than 5,000 lives in this year alone. How many died in the Assad regime's chemical attacks? The UK's mini-dossier put to MPs last Thursday said 330 or so, the fatter US intelligence file cited by Mr Obama said nearly 1,500. One round of claims and responsibilities was described as "highly likely", another as "compelling"; but in a world where we (and Edward Snowden) know that intelligence comes shared, such dislocations bring their own doubts in train. Intelligence does not tell us who, practically, calls the shots in Damascus, whether Assad, as he often seems, is a mere frontman. Intelligence does not tell us how Syria's civil war can be ended. Intelligence did not predict that, a decade after the invasion of Iraq, continuing civil conflict would be on track to claim more than 5,000 lives in this year alone. 
The first, practical response to intelligence advanced in support of military action should be distrust. The second must be to ask why it is there and what it really means. The first, practical response to intelligence advanced in support of military action should be distrust. The second must be to ask why it is there and what it really means. 
Current public opinion polling in France and America, as well as Britain, displays profound scepticism about military interventionism. That isn't just the legacy of Tony Blair and Iraq. It embraces the bitter, and quite unforeseen, cost of Afghanistan, too; and it probably includes the dashing of wider Middle Eastern hope as the Arab spring turns to autumn. There is a hard-edged, utterly practical disbelief that tanks and marines, let alone Tomahawk cruise missiles, can put a large war-torn country together again, or establish a squeaky clean democratic government we can all feel happy about. Some of those most vociferous in the calls for intervention in Syria are among the people who pressed hardest for intervention in Iraq – barely understanding that Iraq's bloody legacy is one of the reasons why public opinion has so cooled on any further military excursion.Current public opinion polling in France and America, as well as Britain, displays profound scepticism about military interventionism. That isn't just the legacy of Tony Blair and Iraq. It embraces the bitter, and quite unforeseen, cost of Afghanistan, too; and it probably includes the dashing of wider Middle Eastern hope as the Arab spring turns to autumn. There is a hard-edged, utterly practical disbelief that tanks and marines, let alone Tomahawk cruise missiles, can put a large war-torn country together again, or establish a squeaky clean democratic government we can all feel happy about. Some of those most vociferous in the calls for intervention in Syria are among the people who pressed hardest for intervention in Iraq – barely understanding that Iraq's bloody legacy is one of the reasons why public opinion has so cooled on any further military excursion.
Chemical weapons are ghastly and repugnant. But the west didn't intervene when Saddam Hussein used them against the Iranians or the Kurds. The napalm the US rained down on Vietnam doesn't belong, emotionally or practically, in some different, lesser category of horror. The burned and dying children a BBC team filmed in a northern Syrian school playground last week were screaming victims, just like the gassed children of suburban Damascus. Chemical weapons are ghastly and repugnant. But the west didn't intervene when Saddam Hussein used them against the Iranians or the Kurds. The napalm the US rained down on Vietnam doesn't belong, emotionally or practically, in some different, lesser category of horror. The burned and dying children a BBC team filmed in a northern Syrian school playground last week were screaming victims, just like the gassed children of suburban Damascus. 
Practicality doesn't create little boxes of malignity and tick them separately. Practical politicians, generals – and, yes, responders to public opinion polls – have to ask what can be done from outside that will make things better for those trapped inside. Especially when the "inside" we are talking about is riven with chaotic regional tensions, myriad vested interests and a number of key players who have been intervening militarily for at least a year, and in some cases, for far longer.Practicality doesn't create little boxes of malignity and tick them separately. Practical politicians, generals – and, yes, responders to public opinion polls – have to ask what can be done from outside that will make things better for those trapped inside. Especially when the "inside" we are talking about is riven with chaotic regional tensions, myriad vested interests and a number of key players who have been intervening militarily for at least a year, and in some cases, for far longer.
Iran, Russia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia don't bother much with UN security council resolutions when considering how to leverage regional advantages and in the process flood a country with arms. Has this helped resolve the situation in Syria? Can further intervention of that sort, practically, help?Iran, Russia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia don't bother much with UN security council resolutions when considering how to leverage regional advantages and in the process flood a country with arms. Has this helped resolve the situation in Syria? Can further intervention of that sort, practically, help?
A "limited, narrow" onslaught by long-range missiles won't. Two days of Tomahawks do not, in Obama's words, mean "regime change" – because there is no alternative regime to change to. Slaps on the wrist won't stop Syria's slaughter, only increase desperation. The only intervention that matters usually means boots on the ground. But Washington and London recoil instantly from such a prospect, aware that the men who wear the boots on divided, miasmic, alien ground can die much too easily and pointlessly themselves.A "limited, narrow" onslaught by long-range missiles won't. Two days of Tomahawks do not, in Obama's words, mean "regime change" – because there is no alternative regime to change to. Slaps on the wrist won't stop Syria's slaughter, only increase desperation. The only intervention that matters usually means boots on the ground. But Washington and London recoil instantly from such a prospect, aware that the men who wear the boots on divided, miasmic, alien ground can die much too easily and pointlessly themselves.
Practically, then, the continuing debate lacks reality, and therefore substance. It won't stop the killing. It is gesture politics. Do gestures matter as much as deeds? To judge from the excited witter after the Commons vote, you might suppose so. David Cameron is suddenly broken-backed; Ed Miliband is an embryo statesman; the special relationship will never be the same again; Britain's place in the world diminished overnight. Too much froth.Practically, then, the continuing debate lacks reality, and therefore substance. It won't stop the killing. It is gesture politics. Do gestures matter as much as deeds? To judge from the excited witter after the Commons vote, you might suppose so. David Cameron is suddenly broken-backed; Ed Miliband is an embryo statesman; the special relationship will never be the same again; Britain's place in the world diminished overnight. Too much froth.
See, in febrile headline terms, how a few laudatory John Kerry references to his dear old ally, France, can panic those whose British worldview begins and ends with subservience in the Atlantic alliance. Watch, perhaps, as the most Eurosceptical rebels on the Tory benches discover a future where Paris, Berlin and Washington consort naturally while a self-isolated Britain sits outside the door. These are all possible developments, starting to churn.They are not, though, practical lessons for the moment. Those can be tersely put. Sometimes western intervention saves lives. It saved lives in Mali, Sierra Leone – and Benghazi, when it cut Libya's coast road. If military ways and means match moral imperatives, then action is a responsibility; and nothing we've experienced from Syria pushes it aside in deference to some misty doctrine of hand-wringing despair. But – and it is a crucial "but" – rebuilding nations is much harder than building cruise missile sites or drone delivery systems. Technological might doesn't automatically mean political wisdom. Intelligence can't automatically confirm what political leaders decree. And governance mechanisms that are broken or ridiculous – from stalemate in the security council to chaos in the whips' office – need fixing.See, in febrile headline terms, how a few laudatory John Kerry references to his dear old ally, France, can panic those whose British worldview begins and ends with subservience in the Atlantic alliance. Watch, perhaps, as the most Eurosceptical rebels on the Tory benches discover a future where Paris, Berlin and Washington consort naturally while a self-isolated Britain sits outside the door. These are all possible developments, starting to churn.They are not, though, practical lessons for the moment. Those can be tersely put. Sometimes western intervention saves lives. It saved lives in Mali, Sierra Leone – and Benghazi, when it cut Libya's coast road. If military ways and means match moral imperatives, then action is a responsibility; and nothing we've experienced from Syria pushes it aside in deference to some misty doctrine of hand-wringing despair. But – and it is a crucial "but" – rebuilding nations is much harder than building cruise missile sites or drone delivery systems. Technological might doesn't automatically mean political wisdom. Intelligence can't automatically confirm what political leaders decree. And governance mechanisms that are broken or ridiculous – from stalemate in the security council to chaos in the whips' office – need fixing.
There is no "principle" of non-intervention. There is, however, every practical reason to draw a line under an era where a self-styled global community set out to fix failed states in a flash of military hardware, cash and naive good intentions. Voters in this "community" aren't keen on that any longer. They will be wrong if they think that they, or any of us, can just stop the world and get off. We all need to keep working, reforming, co-ordinating and sometimes fighting. But narrow, limited and redundant gestures from a prime minister or a president who have run out of ideas don't meet that test. Sometimes – and it applies absolutely to the thought of immediate engagement in the Syrian maelstrom – there is nothing militarily to be done. Sometimes, as Congress may come to recognise, diplomatic effort and all the other frail formulas of apparent impotence are the only options around. Sometimes the people know best. Practically, that is.There is no "principle" of non-intervention. There is, however, every practical reason to draw a line under an era where a self-styled global community set out to fix failed states in a flash of military hardware, cash and naive good intentions. Voters in this "community" aren't keen on that any longer. They will be wrong if they think that they, or any of us, can just stop the world and get off. We all need to keep working, reforming, co-ordinating and sometimes fighting. But narrow, limited and redundant gestures from a prime minister or a president who have run out of ideas don't meet that test. Sometimes – and it applies absolutely to the thought of immediate engagement in the Syrian maelstrom – there is nothing militarily to be done. Sometimes, as Congress may come to recognise, diplomatic effort and all the other frail formulas of apparent impotence are the only options around. Sometimes the people know best. Practically, that is.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.