On The Syria Vote and its Post Mortem

Haaretz.com

Last night, Members of Parliament rejected the Prime Minister's proposal for British involvement in Syria. It's important to note that this wasn't a proposal to directly intervene in Syria (as there was a general consensus that an official UN report had to first be published), but rather a vote on the principle of military intervention. In any case, the proposal was defeated by Labour and a handful of Lib Dems/Conservatives, with the final tally at 272-285. A replay of the debate itself can be found here.

During the debate, a BBC Panorama team in Syria reported a napalm-like attack launched by a fighter plane in Allepo, Northern Syria. The gruesome images and video make for very disturbing viewing, and is probably the reason why we're hearing a lot of voices stating how 'disgraceful' members of Parliament have been. This morning on Radio 4's Today Programme (link up soon), former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown said:

"our country is a hugely diminished country - I've never felt more depressed or ashamed"


In the aftermath of the vote, I think there are several things that should be clarified;

1. Does David Cameron need to resign before the next election?

No Prime Minister has been defeating in the commons on an issue relating to war and peace since 1782. Further, various government sources also suggested that while a number of Conservative MPs were willing to support the PM on the motion as a principle, they would be less inclined to vote in favour of intervention at the second vote- which had been due on Tuesday.

I find it hard to believe that any leader- regardless of oratory skill- would have been able to convince the HoC to support intervention. Especially considering that less than 10% of Britons would support full military intervention according to the polling site, YouGov. The shadow of disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan still loom, while the supposed successes of British intervention in 'Libya' are certainly questionable. The history of military intervention in the Middle East is filled with failure, which no MP could deny; which is why little has been written about concerning the technicalities of intervention and its aftermath compared to emotionally-driven polemic, not least today by Telegraph columnist (and former Labour man) Dan Hodges.

Does this indicate the PM's weakness? In the short term, yes- but that all depends on how successful any other intervention might actually be. Writing in The Telegraph, Fraser Nelson says:

"But he [Cameron] has spent the last few days talking as if Britain’s identity and place in the world were at stake – and last night, Parliament rejected his vision of the country, and where its interests lie."

So while this was a remarkable "Foreign Policy flop" for Cameron, I'd be hesitant in suggesting we'd see a resignation soon. In fact, depending on how effective any type of intervention might be, he might find himself handsomely rewarded- particularly if post-intervention scenarios make the situation worse, as is the most probable outcome.


2. This wasn't a Miliband Win

While Miliband didn't rule out intervention (a point he repeated on a number of occasions throughout the debate), Labour did present some last minute amendments. The general changes called for a greater role played by the United Nations, referred to ambiguously as the "roadmap". But as a whole, it didn't differ that much from the government's position- only emphasizing higher burdens of proof (something difficult to attain in practice) and authorisation by the UN security council- a move that would be considerably difficult considering the positions held by Russia and China. Regardless this amendment was also defeated in the Commons.

Beyond practical measures, Labour didn't argue their position through any principled route- poor, considering that the party still haven't defined themselves coming up to the election.


3.This was the right call

Some have seen the will of Parliament not as a measured response, but rather shameless politicking- letting Syrians die in order to retain votes. This argument is particularly potent when we see the horrific images coming out of Syria, especially of children.

It's a hard call, but staying out militarily is the best option as a whole; that's because Syria definitely isn't Iraq, and in this current state, there are too many rebel faction groups in opposition to "Assad forces" and their affiliates. Providing military support to 'rebels' isn't clear cut, especially as such groups are also receiving support from Arab states within the region. Being directly involved in Syria isn't a matter of fighting Assad and providing grounds for peace- it's being embroiled in a war whereby the mastery of the region is effectively being determined. Britain doesn't need to be involved in another Middle Eastern war, especially if it's effectively being used as a proxy.

Second, as Slate's Matthew Yglesias shows, military intervention often leads to more civilian casualties than lives saved. :







The authors of the paper (Wood et al.) Conclude their study by stating:

"Supporting a faction’s quest to vanquish its adversary may have the unintended consequence of inciting the adversary to more intense violence against the population. Thus, third parties with interests in stability should bear in mind the potential for the costly consequences of countering murderous groups."

Considering how ruthless we've seen Assad be towards rebel uprising, a proposal arguing intervention on the grounds of 'saving lives' should take this into account- regardless of how well meaning such actions might be.