Bomb Syria? UK national newspapers are unsure if that's a good plan
|
Version 0 of 1. To bomb or not to bomb? Britain’s national newspapers are anything but gung-ho about what should be done to confront Isis (Islamic State). Even those who support the theory are worried about the practice. Will it be effective? What’s the strategy? Dare we act alone? There is anything but full-hearted backing for extending the bombing campaign against Isis to Syria. Defence secretary Michael Fallon, who is eager to take the fight further into the Levant, will not take much comfort from today’s editorials and commentaries. The Daily Telegraph, in company with other papers, is unsure what he hopes to achieve. The UK government, it says, “needs to make it clear exactly what the job is.” But it chooses to attack Barack Obama’s US adminstration for “a lack of clear purpose in the American bombing campaign”. Obama’s foreign policy “has always been vacillating, uncertain”, says the Telegraph. “In his quest to be as different from George W Bush as possible, he has largely stood by while the Middle East descended into chaos.” So what should be done? “Britain will have to persuade America to give its Arab allies appropriate support. The UK and US should also put pressure on Turkey to take greater responsibility for the regional crisis.” It agrees that “Isil’s destruction will be difficult” and, even if driven from Syria, what “does the West propose to do about Bashar al-Assad? Or the Sunni radicalism exploited by Isil?” Conceding that David Cameron is waiting to build a Commons consesus, the Telegraph concludes that, during the hiatus, the government should “make its moral case for action – and to convince the public that there is a strategic vision behind it.” The Daily Mail, while seeing the logic in bombing Isis’s Syrian stronghold in Raqqa, is also concerned about where such action will lead: “If Mr Fallon is to persuade the Commons to think again, it must be as part of a plausible wider strategy to defeat IS, involving not just the West but also regional powers including Turkey and Saudi Arabia – who may eventually have to put boots on the ground (which Britain must not be drawn into doing).” And it reminds readers that “wars aren’t won by air power alone – and we know from bitter experience there is no such thing as a ‘surgical’ strike.” The Times also thinks the government, while it considers using RAF planes in Syria, needs to be clearer about its aims But it is sympathetic to Fallon’s suggestion as a way to defeat “a marauding terrorist group” that exists in both Iraq and Syria. So “parliament should revisit the question and help to give clarity to the government’s future strategy.” It recognises that some influential Conservatives are still unconvinced but argues that “Fallon’s speech was the first cautious step in building a new consensus in support of a more ambitious and concerted approach towards confronting Islamic State.” But the Times concludes with the question that haunts the debate: “What next? Despite the outrage over the slaughter in Tunisia, there is no broad support for the dispatch of ground troops. This is a question that must be posed to all the Arab members of the coalition against Isis.” By contrast, the Daily Mirror and the Guardian both oppose any plan to bomb inside Syria. The Mirror worries about the renewed beating of war drums and the possibility that “Britain is being sucked into fresh military action in the Middle East.” It recounts the past dramas: “Britain invading Iraq was a disaster. Afghanistan was a bloodbath. Cameron bombing Libya backfired horrendously. Britain should be encouraging and, if necessary, arming and training Middle East groups and countries to defeat the Islamic State. But let them do the fighting.” The Guardian is also unequivocal in its opposition, regarding the idea of bombing Isis in Syria in the wake of the Tunisian slaughter as “gesture politics”. It says: “The calculation might be different if a bombing campaign had a realistic chance either of defeating Isis on the ground or of discouraging terrorism in the areas that the group does not control. But the US, Canada, Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are all already bombing Isis in Syria without significant effect, as we are in Iraq... Air campaigns work only when there is an effective army on the ground. The Iraqi state hasn’t got one and Syria has too many... In Syria we face the choice between backing the loathsome Assad regime and its opponents, some of whom are equally vile. Legally speaking, we could only interfere there if invited by the Assad government and there is every moral and political reason to shun such an invitation.” The Guardian agrees that “the battle against violent jihadism is vital... But it is going to be won by the security forces, not tanks or warplanes, and in the imaginations of the young men tempted to fight and kill for their nihilist cause.” The Independent’s US editor, David Usborne, points to concerns that the US-led bombing campaigns in both Syria and Iraq have not proved effective, despite the White House claims about the destruction wrought by its actions. He writes: “The purpose of the effort, as consistently described by US officials and indeed by President Barack Obama, is to ‘degrade and ultimately destroy’ Isis. It remains unclear, however, how much closer the coalition is to that goal nine months later or whether it has really made any progress.” His colleague, Mary Dejevsky, was in no doubt about the question: Bombing Syria was a bad idea two years ago – and it still is. She argues that air strikes “have perils of their own”, continuing: “The UK-French intervention in Libya is the most glaring example, where air strikes initially designed to protect civilians changed the balance of forces on the ground and created conditions that led directly to the chaos that still afflicts the country today. It is not clear how far the air strikes against Isis in northern Iraq have been successful, if at all, in curbing its advance. There appear to be ebbs and flows, with some – especially in the US – insisting that this is a conflict that cannot be fought only from the air.” MPs were right when they voted against bombing two years ago, she writes. “Whether it is couched in legal, military, moral or practical terms, the case against UK intervention in Syria holds today.” |