Cameron could be leading us into another open-ended Middle East conflict
|
Version 0 of 1. Escalating military intervention in Syria, as proposed by David Cameron, could ultimately force Britain into de facto alliances with President Bashar al-Assad – a war crimes suspect whose regime Downing Street regards as illegitimate – and with his main backers, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. This is just one of several self-defeating and potentially damaging strategic and regional consequences of stepped-up British military involvement in Syria, which critics such as the Commons defence select committee chairman, Julian Lewis, suggest have not been properly understood or thought through. Cameron and the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, are currently talking about extending British air strikes from Iraq into Syria to help combat the threat posed by Islamic State, the Sunni Muslim extremists. Defeating Isis has replaced overthrowing Assad as their top priority, especially following last month’s attack on British tourists in Tunisia – which led Cameron to warn that Isis has “declared war” on Britain. Escalating our military involvement would also depend on the acquiescence of Iran But John McCain, the Republican senator, and other senior American politicians claim numerous US air strikes in Syria have had limited impact on Isis and that only a bigger troop presence on the ground will bring victory. Lord Richards, the former head of the armed forces, predicted at the weekend that British combat troops and tanks would eventually be required to defeat Isis. He said: “We’ve already carried out more air strikes in Iraq than anyone else, other than the US. But I want us to step up and do what I call a full-spectrum response. That means hammering Isis in Iraq and helping with what the US is doing in Syria.” Increased British military involvement would suit Assad’s purposes, up to a point. Since the Syrian civil war broke out in 2011, the Syrian president has portrayed it as a fight against Sunni “terrorists”, rather than what it is – his regime’s violent attempt to suppress a pro-democracy uprising. Having vowed to “degrade and destroy” Isis, Barack Obama – to whom Cameron constantly looks for direction – and the US state department have also backed away from the goal of removing Assad. Since the anti-Isis missions began, American commanders have reached a working accommodation with Syrian regime forces ensuring that the US strikes can go ahead unhindered. Related: Syria is being tipped off about US-led air strikes on Isis, says Assad Assad’s agreement, tacit or otherwise, would also be required for extended British operations over or inside Syria, thus placing London in the position of effectively cooperating with or shoring up his regime. Such collaboration would be certain to alarm Syrian opposition rebels whose main fight is with Assad, not Isis, and who look to Britain and the US for support. Even if principled objections to Britain bombing yet another Muslim country are set aside, a key lesson of the Iraq war and its lengthy aftermath is that very large numbers of combat troops and materiel cannot ensure success in subduing large areas of territory without local and regional support. Escalating British military involvement would thus depend to a significant degree on, at the very least, the acquiescence of Iran. Shia Muslim Iran played the role of spoiler in Iraq in the 2003-11 conflict, backing both Shia and Sunni resistance to western forces. Attempts to defeat Isis militarily in Syria and Iraq will require Iran, emboldened by its recent nuclear agreement, to play a more positive role. Its (high) price for doing so? Western acceptance of its current, dominant role in Iraq – but more controversially, the survival of its Alawite client in Damascus. Syria’s “army of conquest” rebel coalition, which has enjoyed recent battlefield successes, would not be alone in feeling betrayed if Britain and the US quietly patch things up with Damascus. The main aim of Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, who have done more than most to combat Isis on the ground, is not a counter-terrorism victory but greater autonomy or an independent state. Britain, whose mishandling of the Kurdish question in post-first world war Mesopotamia has not been forgotten, will inevitably be suspected of playing a double game again. Cameron’s Syrian escalation has other possible strategic ramifications that should give serious pause for thought. Assad’s survival would mark a momentous victory for Vladimir Putin. Russia has consistently provided diplomatic cover for Assad – its most important Middle East ally – on the UN security council and throughout various peace efforts. Putin could have it both ways. If Cameron goes ahead, he will in any case portray Britain’s actions as another example of western bullying and as a blatant flouting of international law, thereby deliberately confusing the issue with Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine. Cameron’s escalation is also likely to further alienate regional allies such as Turkey’s fiercely anti-Assad leadership, while exacerbating the Syrian refugee and humanitarian crisis – already the worst in modern history. It may significantly increase the risk of radicalisation of British Muslims. The proposed policy threatens to open a fearsome path towards “full-spectrum”, open-ended and potentially self-defeating British military entanglement in another intractable Middle East war. Yet worse still, in a way, is the prospect that in bidding to destroy the Isis menace in concert with the Assad regime, British forces could unintentionally end up fighting the very same Arab spring pro-democracy rebels whose laudable cause Cameron originally championed. |