Coincidences of interests in Syria

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/22/coincidences-of-interests-in-syria

Version 0 of 1.

Richard Seymour (Bombs are not the answer, 16 September) speaks of a muted sentiment among sections of the left, supporting the US bombing of Isis. I am opposed to a continuing air campaign but I have no objection to bombing Isis in the foothills of Mount Sinjar. Contrary to what Seymour says, the Peshmerga were only able to rescue the Yazidis because of that bombing.

The Yazidis demonstrate how thin the US “humanitarian” pretext was for attacking Isis – it couldn’t wait to abandon them, leaving the most vulnerable stranded. What is true is the hypocrisy of the US, which is revolted by the beheadings of journalists while its ally, Saudi Arabia, is beheading over 20 people per month. Another ally, Egypt, is worse than the Pinochet regime in Chile when it comes to torture and human rights. The evidence suggests that western/Saudi arms supplies to the jihadi groups in Syria are the source of much of Isis’s weaponry.

The solution in the Middle East lies in a tearing down of the whole rotten edifice of regimes and interests that guide US policy – from Saudi Arabia to Israel.

Isis, an openly genocidal group, certainly deserves to be obliterated but only the people of the region can do this. That requires the building of mass movements across the sectarian Shiite/Sunni divide. But there may be a coincidence of interests. Our demands for the withdrawal of the US are not affected in any way by a tactical decision to support bombing as a means of rescue.Tony GreensteinBrighton

• There is one army that can eradicate Isis from Syria and bring stability to the whole country, with the minimum of civilian casualties and the lowest risk of unforeseen consequences. That is the Syrian army and there is no good reason for Obama and Cameron to be preventing them from doing that job.Brendan O’BrienLondon

• As the UK slides towards another military entanglement in the Middle East, on the coattails of the US, we need the Chilcot report on the lessons of Iraq more than ever (Stop this menace, 15 September). Instead, the coalition are filibustering his report to delay it until the runup to the general election, in an attempt to score cheap political points at the expense of Labour. Chilcot should publish a short interim report with the key recommendations now - with or without government support. Paul GodierBournemouth