RE military action in Syria

My immediate reaction is to feel very relieved that the recent US, UK and French attack was very limited and did not provoke a military response from Russia.

However, looking ahead, some recent developments are very worrying.

1 The premature rush to military action before waiting for UN inspections or bringing the matter before the United Nations. The use of chemical weapons was illegal but the military action in response was also illegal. It would have been far better to use legal and non-military means to discourage the further use of these weapons and reason to believe that this could have been achieved.

2 The blank cheques given to President Trump by his allies. Prime Minister May, President Macron and others were pledging unconditional support before they even knew what the volatile and unpredictable Trump intended to do. Wider strikes would have brought risks of damaging Russian planes or personnel, with very real dangers of escalation with terrifying possibilities.

3 The bypassing of Parliament. The previous Parliamentary vote on Syria authorised military action there against ISIS but not against President Assad. David Cameron held three debates on military action, one on Libya and two on Syria (the first of which he lost). Over the past 40 years, it had become established practice to consult Parliament before taking military action. Now Teresa May has reverted to the older practice of war being the government’s prerogative, without reference to Parliament, which will be undermined and diminished.

4. The failure to take any realistic steps to bring about a cease fire in Syria.

Western governments have made this very difficult task harder by demonising Assad as the only evil party (all sides in the war have been brutal), whitewashing his opponents and leading them to believe that there will one day be a large scale Western attack to remove the Assad government.

This would be more difficult than the Iraq War, almost certainly have even worse outcomes and by directly attacking Russia would risk escalation, conceivably even to the level of threats of nuclear war.

When Assad had to withdraw from parts of Syria, ISIS took over, so his removal could make a very bad situation even worse.

The conflict may have reached a stage where a cease fire could be agreed with realistic chances of success.

Western governments should back off from threats to overthrow Assad and advise all the parties to start talking to each other to work towards a ceasefire, which would greatly reduce the terrible level of suffering in the country.

This should be linked to an agreement from all external forces to reduce military involvement and arms sales throughout Syria.

Very difficult, but is there any other way of helping the ordinary people of Syria?

Barry Mills

Silverdale Road

Bolton