Crisis in Syria
[Re: We must accept our limited capacity to resolve conflict in tinderbox Syria, yesterday]
Liam Fox makes some interesting points, but Iraq was an invasion and not an intervention. And not all interventions are bad things – the failure to act in both Rwanda and Bosnia comes to mind.
This is not the time to pussyfoot around. We do need to wait until the UN inspectors report before action is taken. We also need the proof that the Assad regime used chemical weapons. But if we have both, we have to demonstrate to the world that the use of chemical weapons will bring the strongest possible response. In the first Gulf War, it was made perfectly clear to Saddam Hussein that, if he used chemical weapons on our troops, he would receive a dreadful response. That is the model we should follow.
I don’t understand why David Cameron has taken it upon himself to be the most hawkish leader in the world on Syria. His defence cuts have hit UK military forces hard, Syria is unlikely to be the push-over Libya turned out to be, and there is no clear benefit to Britain in intervening.
BEST OF TWITTER
Strike against Syria only makes strategic sense if tied to a diplomatic offensive to bring about a ceasefire.
The more reports I read, the more proof I need that chemical attack was indeed from Assad’s regime.
Vodafone up 10 per cent to a 12-year high. I guess this is what the prospect of a $130bn windfall does.
Central banking is male dominated, possibly reflecting the lack of women studying economics.