British non-intervention in Syria: Sanity or cowardice?

On Thursday, 29th August 2013, the British Parliament was recalled from the summer recess into an emergency session by David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, to discuss the issue of Britain agreeing in principle to intervene militarily in Syria along with its partners in response to Syrian government's use of chemical weapons killing nearly 1000 people. After nearly 12 hours of lively, often acrimonious, debate, the Parliamentarians voted on the motion at about 10:30 in the evening. The government expected to win quite comfortably, as the motion was only to participate militarily in principle, nothing more.

But when a few minutes before 11 pm the result of the vote was announced that the government motion was defeated, there was an incredible scene in the Parliament – some Parliamentarians broke out jovially into wild joy, while others, particularly in government front benches, sank into silence. The TV newscasters covering the proceeding of the Parliamentary debate all day were stunned, their jaws dropped, they listened very carefully in their earphones before divulging the news to the public. This was the first time since the World War II that the government motion to take military action was defeated in Parliament.

Although the spectre of Iraq war was very much in the minds of the Parliamentarians – the way the government of the day had spun intelligence reports, created false perspectives and deceived the Parliament – there was much more to it. The Parliamentarians were very wary of taking a decision of going to war yet again without knowing its objectives, the conduct of the war and above all the exit strategy. The ghost of Iraq war and the bruising experience of fatality of soldiers were haunting them all. A large number of Parliamentarians contacted their constituents to gauge their views before coming to the Parliament and they were simply transmitting the views of the public. This is how democracy should work; not just to rubber stamp the wishes of the Prime Minister or of the government.

The Prime Minister was very much disappointed and, to some extent, humiliated. He made preparations with the American President to launch an attack on Syrian government forces within a few days to punish and probably remove Assad. This was on the basis of American and British intelligence reports alleging that the government forces used chemical weapons – an eerie resemblance to Iraqi intelligence reports! The UN chemical inspectors were only gathering evidence on the ground in Damascus and there was no certainty that the government forces were responsible for using chemical weapons; it could well be the Syrian rebels were responsible. It was inconceivable for the regime to use chemical weapons just 20 minutes before the UN Inspectors were to visit the site. Notwithstanding this minor technicality, America and Britain were prepared to attack immediately, as they did in Iraq before the UN Inspectors finalised their report. The RAF fighter planes were dispatched 24 hours earlier so that immediately after the Parliamentary approval (an almost certainty) the planes would go into action straightaway.

After the vote, the whole perspective of the war changed drastically. Although the PM could possibly use his Royal Prerogative to overturn Parliament's decision invoking the national security, he did not attempt to do that as he knew that he would be required to justify in Parliament that this was indeed the matter of national security. This vote effectively ruled out Britain's participation with America and other countries in the punitive action against Assad. This decision by the British Parliament had major repercussions in the conduct of this war and can change the dynamics of the war.

Let us examine why the British Parliamentarians were so wary of getting sucked into the quick sands of yet another Middle Eastern war? Was that a dose of reality on the part of the Parliamentarians after the public outcry against Iraq war, or was that simple cowardice on the part of the country? War is never a simple matter, particularly when there are so many players, as in Syria. The major protagonists in this war are America and Russia; then there are supportive protagonists in American side like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf States, Israel and Turkey and on Russian side there are Iran and Egyptian military ruler, Sisi. Then there are militant operatives coming from various countries — the Hamas, Palestinian Sunni force opposing Assad; Hezbollah, Palestinian Shia force supporting Assad and, of course, there is the ubiquitous al-Qaeda of vicious Jihadists on the fray. The interactions and cross currents of all of these countries and forces make this war particularly mind boggling and unpredictable.

America dislikes al-Qaeda – America's mortal enemy, al-Qaeda likes Syrian rebels – Sunni Jihadists, but America likes Syrian rebels to remove Assad. So America is now arming Syrian rebels including al-Qaeda. (America armed Talibans during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban saved some of those weapons to use against Americans now in Afghanistan). Israel dislikes Hamas (Palestinian Sunni Jihadists), but Hamas likes Syrian rebels and Israel likes Syrian rebels – so probably Israel and Hamas would be fighting alongside Syrian rebels against Assad! Saudi Arabia dislikes al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda likes Syrian rebels and Saudi Arabia likes Syrian rebels and hence Saudi Arabian money and weapons are pouring in to Syrian rebels and al-Qaeda is benefiting tremendously. Saudi Arabia likes Lebanese Sunnis, Lebanese Sunnis like Muslim Brotherhood (MB), but Saudi Arabia dislikes MB.

There are instances of mutual dislikes also. Turkey dislikes Sisi, Sisi dislikes Muslim Brotherhood (MB), MB dislikes Assad, Assad dislikes Turkey. Similarly, Saudi Arabia dislikes MB, MB dislikes Assad, Assad dislikes Saudi Arabia.

Nonetheless, there are some logical steps in the midst of sheer illogicality. Russia dislikes Syrian rebels, Syrian rebels dislike Iran, but Iran likes Assad and so does Russia. Qatar dislikes both Assad and Sisi, but Sisi likes Assad. Additional complication is that the war architecture is changing all the time. What is now 'liked' may very well be 'disliked' tomorrow. For example, Sisi likes Assad, but in the twinkling of an eye Sisi may dislike Assad (American pressure cannot be ignored!).

What do all these things lead to? Is America with its enormous tentacles of CIA operatives and the ubiquitous listening devices all over the world unaware of developing situations on the ground in Syria? It is almost a common knowledge that al-Qaeda and other Jihadists have wrested control of Syrian war from the Free Syrian Army (FSA). So when America, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and other countries decide to help the Syrian rebels, the aid would inevitably go straight to the Jihadists. It is unthinkable that the West is unaware of this predicament. So why do they do it?

The answer lies in the grand strategy. In the 18th and 19th centuries Britain, France and other colonial powers used what was known as the 'divide and rule' policy. After a pause of nearly 80 or so years (needed to recover from the trauma of two world wars), America has decided to dust it down and put the old wine in a new bottle. What better things can be if enemies can be created within a country and let them fight against each other? When the enemies become all exhausted after prolonged fighting, then America would intervene in the name of humanity and high moral standing to save civilians from the ravages of the war!

The trigger for Syrian intervention seems to have taken place with the use of chemical weapons in Damascus. No one knows who used the chemical weapons – it could well be Syrian Army or the rebels. The UN weapons inspectors were investigating the situation on the ground and they are yet to come to a conclusion. But that did not deter America or Britain to declare,

unambiguously that Assad's Army had used it and killed nearly 1000 people and hence he must be punished. If the full scale attack is launched against Syria, 1000 or more people may be killed on the very first day alone. The toll of fatality could go as high as hundreds of times bigger. So where is the moral ground to intervene in the name of humanity?

The British Parliamentary vote has changed the perspective completely. It not only forced Britain to step aside but also made America to re-evaluate its strategy. Yesterday President Obama was forced to climb down and wait for the Congress to vote on this issue – just like British Parliament did three days ago. Congress in not going to reconvene until 9th September and it may take few days to come to a decision. France is also asking their Parliamentarians to vote on the issue. In the meantime, the UN Inspectors could possibly produce their report giving definite version of the events in Damascus. When all of these jigsaw pieces are put together, there would be a better picture than available today. A decision taken on better picture is infinitely better than acting on blind outrage and making a bad situation worse. The British Parliament had spoken and by its action either on sanity or cowardice has made the international febrile atmosphere much more embracing.

——————————————-
A. Rahman is a Nuclear Safety Specialist.