Syria - not quite like the run-up to Iraq... but not that different either

The contrast ceases when it comes to the evasive justifications for military intervention

Share

In Britain, the trauma of the calamitous war in Iraq has changed everything and nothing. The interplay between party leaders is incomparably different as they consider intervention in Syria. In the Commons today, once more recalled early to contemplate military action, leaders will be determined to show that they have learnt the lessons from recent history. Although often seeking to be Blair-like to the point of inauthenticity, David Cameron will deliberately avoid his predecessor’s evangelical tone, emphasising instead the narrow limits of the planned military involvement. Ed Miliband, who opposed the war in Iraq, will be cautious rather than gung-ho, in contrast to Blair’s opponent, Iain Duncan Smith, who was even keener to support President Bush than the then prime minister was.

Yet the imprecision of the language en route to war remains depressingly the same. The vaguely made assertions come down to the following claim: not acting is worse than acting. Yes, but acting in what form and to what end? What is the exact purpose of the proposed “strike”? What happens afterwards? Once more, Britain follows the US and, with big questions being posed, no clear answers are so far given.

But the domestic political calculations are transformed in the light of the past decade. Then, a wildly divided US administration responded irrationally to the September 11 attacks by seeking to invade Iraq. An insecure British prime minister calculated, in an unquestionably difficult situation, that he would be better placed supporting the US than opposing it. One domestic factor in his calculations was the indiscriminate support from Duncan Smith and the country’s most powerful newspapers. After Saddam was toppled Blair, famously hoped for a “Baghdad bounce” in the polls. He did not get one; and ever since, he has rationalised that, although he took boldly unpopular decisions, he hoped at the time – understandably – that they would prove, if not popular, then the least unpopular option.

Now, leaders are more aware that Britain has ceased to be a nation that instinctively supports wars. After the Falklands conflict, parts of the country appeared to admire Margaret Thatcher more for her being a war leader. In contrast, Cameron knows that he acts with most voters and some powerful newspapers against him. Even The Sun is wary. He will also know that there is no obvious moment of “victory” in this situation that might help him win a subsequent election. His case therefore deserves a hearing when he speaks in detail for the first time in the House of Commons today. With no obvious political benefits that might have swayed him, he must be advocating action because he is genuinely convinced that it is the best course.

The same applies to Nick Clegg, who has made a big move in offering his qualified support for Cameron’s plan. Perhaps the Liberal Democrat leader calculates that he has already lost the support of those voters who turned to his party because of its opposition to the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, this was the Lib Dems’ most distinctive stand in recent decades. If Clegg supports action in Syria, he must have some cause to do so, and he must also be convinced that the action has been clearly thought through. We cannot be certain that he has made the right judgement; he has proved gullible in his dealings with Cameron in the past. But it is not without significance that the leader of the Libl Dems sees some merit in intervention. There is nothing in it for him so he must believe it – although his predecessor, Sir Ming Campbell, has forensically and powerfully argued against action.

Meanwhile, the Labour leadership is predictably agonised, leaving itself the space to support or oppose. Even so, his qualified endorsement puts Miliband in a very different  place to that occupied by the Conservative front bench in the run-up to Iraq, when enthusiasm for military action was such that Duncan Smith made clear that he supported President Bush whether he went to the UN or not.

Blair – brought up in the 1980s, when Labour had been perceived as anti-American – was neurotically worried that Duncan Smith was close to leading Republicans and was determined not to give him the opportunity to be more pro-US than he was. In contrast, Miliband was openly against the invasion of Iraq. Now, he will be making a thousand calculations about where this whole issue will leave him as a potential prime minister. But in spite of the doubts about how Labour will vote tonight, that there has been any hesitation at all suggests Miliband recognises at least part of the case for intervention.

In opposition, Miliband faces even more dilemmas than Clegg does. The Tories, and the newspapers that support them, seek to portray the Labour leader as a vote-losing, 1980s-style lefty. Will opposing a strike provoked by last week’s horrors in Syria reinforce this image? Will qualified support seem more prime ministerial? Whatever the final outcome of the agonising, there will be none of the overtly hawkish proclamations from the Opposition that there were from IDS in advance of Iraq.

There is also another fundamental difference here. This drama is being played out, in the US and UK both, partly by figures who opposed Iraq. President Obama, the reluctant interventionist, takes the lead. The contrast with the expedient, simplistic evangelism of Blair and Bush is marked.

The contrast ceases, however, when it comes to the evasive justifications for military intervention and the all-too familiar unanswered questions. Post-Iraq, there may be more caution in British domestic politics. But still the “something must be done” tendency prevails, even if that “something” is ill-defined. Is the strike aimed solely at destroying Bashar al-Assad’s capacity to use chemical weapons? What happens if and when Assad retaliates – do we strike again? Who are we supporting, given that the rebels include al-Qa’ida? What constitutes a successful military intervention? How long might it last? What happens if other countries in the region get involved?

The Government is characteristically hyperactive at the UN, but proposes a resolution that is as evasive as the one that was justifiably rejected by France and others weeks before the invasion of Iraq. The proposed text seeks authority for all “necessary” measures to “protect civilians from chemical weapons”. Once more, the questions are clearer than the answers. What constitutes “necessary” actions? The implication is clear that the military aim is limited to annihilating Assad’s chemical weaponry, but why is this the sole criterion for attack? What will the US, and therefore the UK, do if Assad uses other forms of slaughter – as he has done in the past and has indicated he will do again? Is murder with chemical weapons unacceptable but death by other means unworthy of the world’s attention?

Decisions about military intervention in the face of a murderous tyrant are always complex. In the UK they are complicated further because leaders face a secondary theme: do they dare oppose the US? But unless the answers to all the obvious questions are clear, then the dilemma resolves itself. While the risks of doing nothing are high, the risks of acting without knowing what will follow are higher still. In tone and in the publicly declared modesty of military ambition, British leaders have learnt some of the lessons from Iraq. But not, it seems, the most important one.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Recruitment Genius: Online Media Sales Trainee

£15000 - £30000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Now our rapidly expanding and A...

Recruitment Genius: Public House Manager / Management Couples

£15000 - £20000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Are you passionate about great ...

Recruitment Genius: Production Planner

£20000 - £30000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This fast growing reinforcing s...

Recruitment Genius: General Factory Operatives

£18000 - £35000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This fast growing reinforcing s...

Day In a Page

Read Next
 

If I were Prime Minister: Every privatised corner of the NHS would be taken back into public ownership

Philip Pullman
 

Errors & Omissions: Magna Carta, sexing bishops and ministerial aides

John Rentoul
As in 1942, Germany must show restraint over Greece

As in 1942, Germany must show restraint over Greece

Mussolini tried to warn his ally of the danger of bringing the country to its knees. So should we, says Patrick Cockburn
Britain's widening poverty gap should be causing outrage at the start of the election campaign

The short stroll that should be our walk of shame

Courting the global elite has failed to benefit Britain, as the vast disparity in wealth on display in the capital shows
Homeless Veterans appeal: The rise of the working poor: when having a job cannot prevent poverty

Homeless Veterans appeal

The rise of the working poor: when having a job cannot prevent poverty
Prince Charles the saviour of the nation? A new book highlights concerns about how political he will be when he eventually becomes king

Prince Charles the saviour of the nation?

A new book highlights concerns about how political he will be when he eventually becomes king
How books can defeat Isis: Patrick Cockburn was able to update his agenda-setting 'The Rise of Islamic State' while under attack in Baghdad

How books can defeat Isis

Patrick Cockburn was able to update his agenda-setting 'The Rise of Islamic State' while under attack in Baghdad
Judith Hackitt: The myths of elf 'n' safety

Judith Hackitt: The myths of elf 'n' safety

She may be in charge of minimising our risks of injury, but the chair of the Health and Safety Executive still wants children to be able to hurt themselves
The open loathing between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu just got worse

The open loathing between Obama and Netanyahu just got worse

The Israeli PM's relationship with the Obama has always been chilly, but going over the President's head on Iran will do him no favours, says Rupert Cornwell
French chefs get 'le huff' as nation slips down global cuisine rankings

French chefs get 'le huff' as nation slips down global cuisine rankings

Fury at British best restaurants survey sees French magazine produce a rival list
Star choreographer Matthew Bourne gives young carers a chance to perform at Sadler's Wells

Young carers to make dance debut

What happened when superstar choreographer Matthew Bourne encouraged 27 teenage carers to think about themselves for once?
Design Council's 70th anniversary: Four of the most intriguing prototypes from Ones to Watch

Design Council's 70th anniversary

Four of the most intriguing prototypes from Ones to Watch
Dame Harriet Walter: The actress on learning what it is to age, plastic surgery, and her unease at being honoured by the establishment

Dame Harriet Walter interview

The actress on learning what it is to age, plastic surgery, and her unease at being honoured by the establishment
Art should not be a slave to the ideas driving it

Art should not be a slave to the ideas driving it

Critics of Tom Stoppard's new play seem to agree that cerebral can never trump character, says DJ Taylor
Bill Granger recipes: Our chef's winter salads will make you feel energised through February

Bill Granger's winter salads

Salads aren't just a bit on the side, says our chef - their crunch, colour and natural goodness are perfect for a midwinter pick-me-up
England vs Wales: Cool head George Ford ready to put out dragon fire

George Ford: Cool head ready to put out dragon fire

No 10’s calmness under pressure will be key for England in Cardiff
Michael Calvin: Time for Old Firm to put aside bigotry and forge new links

Michael Calvin's Last Word

Time for Old Firm to put aside bigotry and forge new links